It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Newport Mystery Tower

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Actually I'd ask you to explain why you thought it was inaccurate. Not everything can be true. We've already eliminated a great number of inaccurate ideas about the tower - why is this observatory idea not allowed to be considered in the same way?

It is easier to find the truth by eliminating that which cannot be.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Sure...but you're still just guessing.

Han: Not quessing, reasoned observation - so how many observatories have you seen that have only three opening, and you make critical observations while against one wall and best of all you don't have a clear observation path to the horizon? These comments and based on evidence and aren't guesses. - how many observatories have fire places on the east side where the sun rises?

A whole bunch of archaeology is theoretical, and a whole bunch is speculative.

Hans: Some is but the majority is based on actual evidence. Again there is no sign of anynone but the colonists and native americans in that area. Yet these unknown people built a tower in the same style as a windmill in England - yet it was an observatory ==== that IS guessing!

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"

Hans: Well that is certainly your choice but in this case I'd say, highly improbable.

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

Hans: ??

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

If you can find me evidence to prove otherwise, I'd be willing to evaluate it. The tower does seem to be aligned strategically, probably for defense reasons, with other land formations in the area. I suppose the observatory idea would not be that reasonable perhaps for astrological purposes, as it seems to be a windmill. However, many of the sources suggest that the mill is located on something which was converted. I don't know what stood there before, but if it did exist during the pre-colonial time periods I would be willing to believe that it was of Native American origin and, if so, it is highly possible that it would somehow be aligned for the solstices. I think that the author of the article about the observatory did a lot of work, and that perhaps they are right. Maybe we won't be able to find the true answer.

I'm not so ready to discount the observatory theory. If it was properly aligned, it would have made defense easier, and it would possibly have been easier to locate from outside the colony for those looking for it. The exact location seems very precise on purpose.

And for clarification of previous threads regarding who built the mill:

Archeologists and historians for the most part agree that Governor Benedict Arnold—grandfather of the Revolutionary War traitor—had the Newport Tower constructed in the mid 17th century. As evidence, they point to a passage in governor Arnold's will in which he refers to the tower as "my stone-built windmill."

Not the same Arnold from the war, although he may have later owned the land and, in fact, used it for defense.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Do you think Benedict Arnold might have been keeping some mischievous Indians in there as prisoners? Perhaps they were running about his lands and picking food at their fancy?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by cognoscente

I doubt anyone could be contained in there unless there were chains involved...

But I bet it would be nice and cozy with that fireplace ^_^

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:16 PM
If it was a wind mill then it was probably located where it picked up both the sea and land winds, especially those that arise just after the winds lapses at dusk and dawn.

By your criteria nearly every building in the world can be an observatory.

May I humbly suggest that you might want to read up on ancient observatories. The story these guys are trying to pass off as 'science' is just silly.

Not particularly defendable either. The roof and floor would have been wood plus the arches that give it height make a blind spot, no observation to the east - nor are the windows made for defense, ie slotted for use with bow, crowbow or matchlock.

A death trap for anyone caught inside it.

Speaking of silly

Another one for the pot of ideas for the Newport tower.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

I have studied ancient observatories and will at one point be posting my work on Newgrange, Woodhenge, and Central/South American observatories. And Stonehenge, of course.

I'm just not going to rule it out entirely. It took years before Stonehenge was identified as an observatory. I'm not going to rule out that it wasn't built by aliens inside a crop circle, either. I keep my mind open to everything, so that I can continue to accept new developments.

It's not probable, though, you're right.

However, I did a year's worth of research on enigmatic anthropology and archaeology. I would appreciate you didn't assume that I had no idea what I was talking about.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm not making any assumption at all I'm reacting solely to what you are saying.

Stoneghenge, open to the horizon in all direction, multiple sight lines in 360 degrees, set up to find the sun rise. Compared to the tower.

I rest my case.

To more fun things. How about Dr. Chaims (may not have that name right) who when they found L'anse declared that instead of the Norse coming to America it was the NA who had gone to Iceland and Europe. Brought back the technology and built the tower we see. Maybe you should consider the tower was built by Indians who took European culture and returned.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:42 PM
If they built the tower, it probably is not anything resembling the tower that stands today.
The origins of the Native Americans has been up for debate for awhile, as the question of whether or not they went to Europe and returned, etc. I do believe that it is possible, based on the technology of their boats and watercrafts.

It seems more likely that it was once maybe a sacred stone structure of some sort, to be compared with sacred mounds perhaps, and then later was converted into the mill.

Or maybe it was always a mill.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:40 AM
Canadian academic Michael Bradley covers this anomalous structure fairly comprehensively in his book "Grail Knights of North America: On the Trail of the Grail Legacy in Canada and the United States". Having examined the tower first-hand he speculates upon its builders and purpose in a very compelling manner. To quote from his concluding paragraph in Chapter 7: The Newport Tower, he states: " opinion is that it is an artifact genuinely indicative of the Grail Knights of North America -- one way or the other. Either it was built by Sinclair's people or people that were allied to them, perhaps some Greenlanders, or it was built by their enemies represented by the Paul Knutson expedition to Greenland, Vinland, and farther west in pursuit of heretics." This book is fascinating from cover to cover and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in pre-Columbian North American exploration.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:36 AM
Hello ravenshadow!! What an interesting topic!! Have very little time to read the whole post right now-but will definitely check it out later...forgive me if I've repeated anything already here, but has anyone checked into the Knights Templar theory on this tower? I remember reading about it somewhere along my internet travels!! Good luck!! What interesting theories you all have!!

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

There is proof in a chapel in Scotland called Rosslyn chapel that shows ears of corn in the artwork of the building (corn was indigneous to America not Europe) So evidently someone crossed the Atlantic before Columbus!! Not trying to get off topic-really feel these things could have an interesting twist to your tower theories...which by the way I find fascinating!! (I'm fascinated with masonic-Templar theories in history) Just something for you to have fun with!! Good luck!!

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:53 AM
Look at
There are 100's of towers "not quite as intricate" as the Newport one, all across the midwest .. most are chimneys from early settlers, some are just plain weird, and seem to have no purpose.
There is one a few miles from my home, 30 feet tall or better, has the arch opening and all, I have sat atop this while hunting, "it is 1/2 mile from there nearest pavement...
Besides just wanted to bump your thread, thanks nice topic...

Forgot.....Lots of artifacts, from the areas date much earlier than most are willing to accept, I agree there is a mystery of... time vs. ppl
evan this far inland.....

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Doc Holiday]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

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

Hans: ??

Up to about 10 or 15 years ago, anyone who publically espoused a date older than 11 or 12kya for humans in North America was considered wrong. Punkt. That has changed and one site in Chile opened the floodgates.

There is no date that can be applied to the Newport Tower at this point. The documentation is ambiguous. When you say this can't be an observatory because it doesn't look like others, that's speculation. Caution, to be sure, but it can't be expressed as a certainty.

Here's an example of academic ambiguity on the subject:

The tendency to measure prehistoric astronomy -- along with mensuration and geometry -- against the yardstick of modern science has, it seems, finally been laid to rest . However, there is no doubt that architectural alignments with celestial bodies and events are potentially of considerable importance within broader investigations of ways in which of the location and form of monuments served to express meaningful cosmological relationships, and the ways in which such relationships were exploited

Thing is, it's easy to apply the status quo and say "No, that can't be." But nothing new happens that way. If that were so, then Dillehay, in Chile, would not have changed the paradigm. Hans, I respect your common-sense approach to the subject, but personally I prefer to poke around at the fringes. Not out where it gets stupid, but out where all cats are gray.

The acceptance of any pre-Columbian European presence in North America is relatively recent, and you won't find many pros today willing to state unequivocally that there were no visitors between Erik the Red, and Columbus. I feel the tower has to be left as a mystery until anything better emerges, and as such, many doors are left open.

A quick edit to address your statement: "
Stonehenge, open to the horizon in all direction, multiple sight lines in 360 degrees, set up to find the sun rise. Compared to the tower.

I rest my case. "

If you look at neolithic sites like Skara Brae and Maeshowe, you'll see evidence of passageways that only served a purpose one day a year, and that was to 'set the clock'. I rest my case.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:14 AM
\There is proof in a chapel in Scotland called Rosslyn chapel that shows ears of corn in the artwork of the building (corn was indigneous to America not Europe\

Its not a proof at all.
I would say - imagination again.
I found the pic of this "maiz"


In anyway, its well-known who built the chapel, when etc.,

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by rockhndr...has anyone checked into the Knights Templar theory on this tower?

Originally posted by russi
In anyway, its well-known who built the chapel, when etc.,

Well, guys, take a look at the stories about the Templars, and Sinclair, and you'll see some interesting overlap and potential for all kinds of mischief.

But I'll give you a tip...ignore the castle at New Ross.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:52 AM
[edit on 3-2-2009 by Russi]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Wow, that's so interesting! I hadn't even heard of that source before. Grail Knights of America...

I think it's highly possible that Benedict Arnold (The governor, not the general) may have been involved in such things. Many colonials were.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by rockhndr

That's really interesting about the corn!
I found this website

It looks like there's a worthwhile book to come out this month!!

A recent investigation of the rock by David K. Schafer, concluded that except for the "sword handle", which is definitely a punch carving, the entire feature consists of naturally-formed scratches caused by glaciation. The local town historian of Westford has stated that there is evidence that the T-shaped inscription was made in the late 19th century.
Furthermore, historians believe that the area around the rock has undergone erosion since the clearing of trees in the 18th century, and that during the time of the alleged voyage by Sinclair, the rock was probably in a hardwood forest covered by 3 or 4 ft (1 or 1.3 m) of earth. Moreover, the area of Westford is inland and not easily accessible by water, making it highly improbable that any nautical voyage would venture there. It may be worth noting that the carving sits alongside a current road which lies on what would have been a natural path used to descend the hill through the woods. Had the expedition been made, and had the expedition decided to pass through this specific area, this was a likely route for the group to follow. However, there is no evidence that Sinclair or Gunn ever actually traveled to the Americas.

The book looks like it's about the same genre as The DaVinci Code.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Doc Holiday

I think the general shape is that of a mill, so that's one mystery solved. The questions left are who built it, and was it perhaps something different before it became a mill?

Maybe the mill had a multiple purpose. Obviously it was also used for shelter at point (hence the fireplace).

The link you gave shows a lot of watertowers and chimneys from early houses. Nothing quite as round, either. There is a chimney in a field about a half hour from my house. I think most of those are actually more modern than the Newport Tower, IMO.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by ravenshadow13]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in