1362-The Kensington Runestone

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I found the L'anse site to be very forelorn (especially after the very long drive to get there) considering climatic changes I don't see it could have been anything but a point to winter over and repair ships as they recce'd about.

That would appear to be the purpose...but that would also imply that other sites might be little more than encampments.

As to forlorn...there is a singular rugged beauty there as well...icebergs, whales, moose, the tackamore. I was entranced...but I digress....

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by punkinworks

 

1.Christopher Columbus father was a weaver

2. The Newport tower is a direct copy of similar ones in England and was built as a wind mill. We have a thread here that talks about that - the sun thing is a no go too.

1. It was his Father-in-Law that was a grand master of the Knights of Christ.

2. The NewPort Tower has eight legs, the windmill has six. Also discoloration in the clay right next to the tower forms a circular pattern that indicates that there were wooden posts there that supported a covered walkway. Something that windmills do not have. The sun does actually line up with the keystone on the Winter Solstice and the other keystone does lineup directly with the Kensington Stone.

The Newport tower is a direct copy of similar ones in England and was built as a wind mill. We have a thread here that talks about that - the sun thing is a no go too

Hans, you seemed to have missed the History Channel show covering this topic as your statement above is incorrect or based on an outdated assumption. The tower is modeled after the round churches of Gotland, where it's Norse builders (and Templar founders) came from. Windmills in England only had 6 legs versus the eight of this tower, and were hexagonal, not circular as this structure was. The show also illustrated several of the astronomical alignments that occur, as well as one profound alignment to the Kensington stone 1,500 miles away.

Hans: I rarely watch the history channel due to it's unfortunate habit of televising bad information as real. You may wish to find the last Newport Tower thread and revise there instead of this Runestone thread. If you wish to continue the discussion start a new thread or find one of the old ones.

The tower is modeled after the round churches of Gotland, where it's Norse builders (and Templar founders) came from.

Hans: Picture please, of course this raises the question if its from Gotland why are there no habitations or artifact from that period?

Windmills in England only had 6 legs versus the eight of this tower, and were hexagonal, not circular as this structure was.

Hans: You are correct that some have six and some were hexagonal but were they all?

The show also illustrated several of the astronomical alignments that occur, as well as one profound alignment to the Kensington stone 1,500 miles away.

Hans: Now those are just silly, if you have a window in a direction where the sun sets or rises you will have an alignment.

So we have claims of Templars, Norse, Celtic, Chinese, Welsh and probably a few others I've forgotten. I'll go with English. Unless you can overturn the 1942 excavation and the later one too.

Edited to add: I left off the Portuguese, all of these are possible if you reject the parameters of what is known and claim x or y might be possible.

The 1993 AMS dating of 1680 pretty much ended the story, unless the AMS dating can be shown to be wrong or new evidence comes up, the lack of supporting contra-evidence points to a colonial construction.


[edit on 27/9/09 by Hanslune]

The C14 dating conducted by Siemonsen's in 1993 has a high potential for error. The results indicated possible construction dates from as early as the 1400's to as late as the 20th century.
The Colonial origin was based on an averaging of these dates. This was one of the first attempts C14 dating porous mortar and the results seem too dubious.

The earlier excavations performed in the 1940's by Godfrey also indicated a colonial period plaster had been applied to the walls of the structure, which could skew the C14 dating. That could also be the source of the fragmentary evidence found in or about the foundations. Was the structure simply refurbished during Colonial times? If so, then it's logical the site would be heavily contaminated by Colonial artifacts.

Frederick J. Pohl writes in the The New England Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1945), pp. 501-506, an article titled: "Was the Newport Tower Standing in 1632?"part of which you can read online, a critique of the Colonial origin of the tower. He points out several flaws in the theory it was built by Gov. Arnold, most notably the fact that building projects were so thoroughly documented during this time yet none indicate a stone windmill was built.

A 2006-2007 excavation conducted by the Chronognostic Research Foundation found indications of an ambulatory structure, in a project called "Newport Tower Project Extension" (May 30 - June 4, 2008, Steve Voluckas, Field Director). Their conclusion: "The exploratory dig under the walkways produced indications of an unknown structure near or around the Tower. Further studies will e required to determine the size and nature of this structure, and how it relates to the tower".

"The Hooked X - Key to the secret history of North America" - by Scott F Wolter, and the History program connect the style of the tower to the style of round churches in Gotland, the traditional home of the Cistercians and the Knights Templar. The ambulatories of these churches are consistent with the stone tower. There are also other stylistic indicators this tower was not built to be a windmill:

You have the stone columns protruding from the face of the structure - most likely there to support rafters for an ambulatory.


You have a second floor fireplace (Means, 1942) - grossly out of place in a windmill (fire and grain dust do not mix)


You have indications of an altar and small alcoves that might have held reliquaries, also consistent with Catholic worship. Although forced to flee to Scotland following the "Suppression Order" of the Pope, Knights Templars were still observant of the Catholic faith, and if the tower were built as a church by Henry Sinclair, it only makes sense that it includes "Catholic" accouterments.


(Photos courtesy of Unexplainedearth.com)

Further, according to Wolter and the History Channel program, the alignments were not haphazard, but consistent with Cistercians and the Knights Templar observations. The theory proposed by Wolter (among others) is that Henry Sincliar of the Scottish Freemasons, built the structure and the alignments are connected to the Sacred Feminine rituals (see "About Prince Henry Sinclair"). In particular was the alignment of the egg-shaped keystone with the winter solstice, and that this keystone, aligned with the arch opposite of it, points the way to the Kensington Stone.

The CRF gives an excellent accounting of all the celestial and terrestrial alignments of the tower: DISCOVERY OVER TOURO PARK
One major factor to their assessment the tower was built prior to 1457 is that the solstice alignments were needed to observe dates, yet after that point, during the Colonial period, such observation towers were no longer needed with the advent of the printing press and printed almanacs.

The CRF too, concludes Arnold was most likely not the tower's builder:

"Finally, the Tower is probably not 17th century, in which case it was not built by Governor Benedict Arnold. Arnold certainly owned the land on which it stood, and he might have tried to make a windmill out of it, to replace Peter Easton’s windmill, which blew down in a hurricane in August, 1675. But Arnold and his contemporaries built almost exclusively in wood - their houses, churches, windmills, even their ironworks at Saugus, Massachusetts, with its two massive iron forges. So Arnold probably did not build the Tower.

But he may have taken good care of his very odd building, just as Newporters have done ever since. And for that, we can thank him as well as Judah Touro, and the Newport City Council: all have preserved the structure for study in the 21st century." (source)

All the above are the conclusions of others, but one thing I gathered from the program is that you can't trust C14 dating, at least with porous (and easily contaminated) materials like mortar.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by Blackmarketeer]

I find it interesting that in the same year 1362 a valcano erupted in Iceland chasing the inhabitants away for over 40 years befor Denmark resettled in Iceland. Could they have moved to North America in search of new homes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Öræfajökull is an ice-covered volcano in south-east Iceland. It is the largest active volcano in the country and on its north-western rim is Hvannadalshnúkur, the highest peak in Iceland. Geographically Öræfajökull is considered part of the Vatnajökull glacier and the area covered by glacier is inside the bounds of Skaftafell National Park.

Öræfajökull has erupted twice in historical time. In 1362 the volcano erupted explosively with huge amounts of tephra being ejected. The district of Litla-Hérað was destroyed with floods and tephra fall. More than 40 years passed before people again settled the area which became known as Öræfi. The name literally means an area without harbour but it took on a meaning of wasteland in Icelandic. An eruption in August 1727 to 1728 was smaller, though floods are known to have caused three fatalities.

.

en.wikipedia.org...

January 16 1362– The "Grote Mandrenke" storm tide strikes Holland, England, Germany and Denmark, destroying the city of Rungholt in Nordfriesland, Germany.

Could this storm tide be from the valcano chasing the people of Iceland in the opposite direction North America.

Waldemar Atterdag of Denmark defeats the Hanseatic League in a naval battle off Helsingborg.

Besides the fact that there was a naval war going on off the coast of Denmark.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by JBA2848]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


As this is a thread on the Kensington stone I'll reply to just he AMS. Blackmarketeer do you understand the different between conventional C-14 dating and AMS?

So Jungner sent them to the AMS laboratory in Aarhus, Denmark, where samples as small as one gram of prepared mortar powder could be dated, thanks to the fact that the AMS method requires less than one milligram of carbon. At Aarhus, one of us (Heinemeier), being director of that laboratory, first became involved in mortar dating. Although a physicist, Heinemeier was already engaged in archaeological pursuits, namely studies of the bones of Greenland Vikings. The samples from Newport Tower were crushed, sieved and then combined with acid, yielding carbon dioxide, which gave a date of about 1680. This finding provided additional scientific support for the late 17th-century date derived from the archaeological evidence. No Vikings at this site—the tower was a Colonial windmill after all.

From

I believe you may be confusing the conventional C-14 dates from the earlier tests, (which had a wider range) with the more modern ones by AMS.

If you want to discuss the Newport tower yet again repost this to a Newport thread.

I'm not the one who brought the Newport Tower up in this thread Hans, I'm replying to what was previously posted. Since the program (and book) that seemed to have inspired this thread specifically mention the tower and it's relationship to the Kensington stone then it's fair game to talk about.

I referred to the 1993 AMS dating method as "C14" that was my error - but the point I raised still stands. The conductor of the test, Jorgen D. Siemonsen, himself states that the dating results "could have been built any time from 1450 to 1700". Those are his own words.

Further:

The group also did a computer analysis of photographs to determine what unit of measurement was used in building the tower's windows and pillars. Mr. Siemonsen said the study indicated a unit of measurement called the ell, from Central and Southern Europe, one that was not used then in England. "We would have expected that if they were British colonial builders they would have used the English foot," as was done in constructing the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House, he said.

The scientific evidence, he said, "brings us to the conclusion that someone built this tower before Rhode Island was settled by the British in 1634."

And even more:

Another factor in the new dating was the determination that the tower's mortar was made from crushed clam shells instead of limestone. The earliest evidence of limestone's being quarried in Rhode Island was in 1646, Mr. Siemonsen said.

So the test can only indicate the age of the mortar. I can assure you, as someone who works in the building trade, that mortar is routinely replaced in aging structures. "Tuck-pointing" is removing decaying and crumbling mortar and replacing it with new mortar.

As a number of indicators found by the authors listed above may point out that Gov. Arnold may have refurbished an aged stone tower for use as a windmill, then relying ONLY on one AMS dating method would seem folly, especially when newer studies have shown there is more to the tower then previously thought.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Blackmarketeer]

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Blackmarketeer]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Okay I stand corrected, please provide a peer reviewed published paper that refutes the 1993 AMS dates.

en.wikipedia.org...(Rhode_Island)

1992 carbon-14 dating
In 1992, radiocarbon dating tests of the tower's mortar were undertaken by a team of researches from Denmark and Finland. The results support a construction date between 1635 and 1698. However, the full range of dates from the samples taken is between 1410 and 1930.

The dating of the mortar was rounded from dates rangeing from 1410 to 1930.

reply to post by JBA2848

The dating of the mortar was rounded from dates ranging from 1410 to 1930.

Precisely my point. I'm not "refuting" the test (where do I even state that Hans?), but I am pointing out that this test and it's team claim a very wide range of dates. The results are simply too dubious to make a conclusive date possible, especially when, as they admit, they averaged the dates to give a mid-17th c. construction date. I'm sure if I averaged the dates of all the building material in my house I'd come up with something much newer than it's original build date.

It's a stone tower. It has probably had many repairs and new mortar pointed in over the old. The earliest dating as 1400's is most likely based on the oldest remains of mortar from that time period.

Niven Sinclair (descendant of Henry Sinclair) has raised these points regarding the dating, and these are very valid points:

"But let us return to the carbon dating of the mortar at Newport Tower. As we have seen the method of testing by measuring the level of carbon which has been absorbed into the mortar during the hardening process, is a comparatively new technique which has still not been generally accepted by scientists and archaeologists.

Furthermore, of the 30 samples taken by the Scandinavian team, only 10 were tested and, of these, seven were discarded because they varied too much from the 'norm'. In other words, the conclusions reached were based on three samples and from these skeletal and 'negative' beginnings, the authors of the report jumped to 'positive' conclusions in order to fit a pet theory that the tower was built by Governor Arnold although there are six known references to the tower before Governor Arnold arrived in America.

No consideration was given to the known replacement of the mortar at different periods or to the architectural design of the tower which corresponds with other round towers to be found in the Northern Islands of Scotland and in Scandinavia. Indeed, 18 of the 27 round churches in Scandinavia have fireplaces on the first floor in exactly the same position as Newport Tower. The report under discussion also suggests that Newport Tower is similar to the Chesterton Mill in England (with which Governor Arnold is - erroneously - said to have been connected). One might as well compare a mud hut with the White House. I have the advantage of knowing both buildings having visited each in the course of my researches."
(source)

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


That post was for Hanslune. Sorry for the confussion. He keeps qouteing the testing and giving a date of 1690 when the testing showed 1410 to 1930.

Back to the question at hand, the geology cleary puts the stone at being made no later than the late 17th century.
The geology of the weathering states that it is older than 200 years when it was found, and there is no way to artificiallly weather the stone.
The bio-chemical etching from tree roots and fungus cant be faked, either.
Its location puts it about 14 days canoe journey to either the great lakes or lake winnipeg.
The area in the 14th century was an island or penninsula.
The dotted double r and hooked x runes that apear on it are also found in gotland. And they werent discovered in catalogued till the 1930's, so there's no way the farmer could possibly have known them.

Oh i forgot this little gem of an article i found,

Tooth marks link Vikings, Indians
study: 1,000-year-old skeletons: Decorative groove technique likely learned in America

Randy Boswell, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, January 13, 2006

A scientist who found deep grooves chiselled into the teeth of dozens of 1,000-year-old Viking skeletons unearthed in Sweden believes the strange custom might have been learned from aboriginal tribes during ancient Norse voyages to North America -- a finding that would represent an unprecedented case of transatlantic, cross-cultural exchange during the age of Leif Ericsson.



Read more: meta-religion.com...

and

Examples of tooth modification have been found at archeological sites around the world -- with the exception, until now, of Europe.

The study notes a similarity in style between the Scandinavian specimens and dental markings common about 1,000 years ago in parts of North America, including Mexico and the present-day United States as far north as Illinois.



Read more: meta-religion.com...

reply to post by punkinworks

the geology cleary puts the stone at being made no later than the late 17th century.

Ruling out a forgery from the late 19th c. as traditionally thought. The program mentioned also that Ohlman (sp?) likely traced out the runes with a nail in an attempt to decipher them (who wouldn't in his position? After all the guy wasn't a trained archeologist, so wouldn't know better than to tamper with the etched runes). A later study indicated the sides of the etched runes were very old, while the scratch marks at the bottom of the runes (as made by Ohlman) were newer. What's it mean? The "experts" were too quick to label it a fraud.

The dotted double r and hooked x runes that apear on it are also found in gotland. And they werent discovered in catalogued till the 1930's, so there's no way the farmer could possibly have known them.

Also the Hooked X rune connects back to the Greenland and Mass. sites, (and Sinclair's later expedition to recover the Kensington Stone).

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Ruling out a forgery from the late 19th c. as traditionally thought. The program mentioned also that Ohlman (sp?) likely traced out the runes with a nail in an attempt to decipher them (who wouldn't in his position? After all the guy wasn't a trained archeologist, so wouldn't know better than to tamper with the etched runes). A later study indicated the sides of the etched runes were very old, while the scratch marks at the bottom of the runes (as made by Ohlman) were newer. What's it mean? The "experts" were too quick to label it a fraud.
Also the Hooked X rune connects back to the Greenland and Mass. sites, (and Sinclair's later expedition to recover the Kensington Stone).

Conjecture, folks...all very interesting but conjecture just the same.

Don't be afraid to look at possibilities, but too many people confuse them with facts. And if you want to change history...you have to be right.

I can lay out a bunch of 18th-19th century treatises that explain in very elegant terms how a lost race built the Mounds, before succumbing to the savage Indians. They were pretty darn sure they were right, too.

reply to post by JBA2848


Because you round the dates and take an average - that is why you take a large number of samples. This is particularly true of items that may have been contaminated. That is standard procedure. Example there is one (out of 300) samples from the pyramids and other old kingdom sites that came in at 3200 BC - is that now the official date or do you take the average. There they had a problem with old wood.

Oh and a general statement, quoting a history channel program isn't a good idea they are well known for outsourcing their filming and obtaining back material that is more for "public munching" than reality. ie they are not scientific nor verified and many directors 'make up stuff' or go with believer materials to make a 'good story'.

[edit on 28/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I hate to tell you there BM but by your logic every single sample based carbon dating is no longer valid - you may wish to inform the scientific world on your finding of this startling revelation. More seriously you may wish to read an Archaeology 101 book to get an understanding of how this done. I can recommend the one by Renfrew

Average is what you do it is the scientific method.

Your other evidence comes from a discussion board. So let me restate it slowly and clearly so you get it. I might also suggest that you find the 1993 paper (which I have not read) that may provide more information for both of us.

The carbon 14 AMS dates stand until refuted by a peer review published paper. Do you have same?

I believe what you do have is lots and lots of passionate believers who want there tower to be Norse, Templer, Portuguese, Celtic or whatever. They will say anything and believe anything - nothing will change their minds. Kinda reminds me of the Shroud of Turin folks.

While you sort around for that paper how do you explain the complete lack of any archaeological finds except 17th century?


You are most correct JohnnyCanuk

[edit on 28/9/09 by Hanslune]

Wow, Hans, seems to me like all you can do on this board is sling insults after insults.

Clean up your act, every single debate you partake in you drag into the mud by passing off insults instead of doing any research on your end, falling back to pseudo-academic dogma.

The History Channel program was based on Wolter's book. Wolter is the geologist hired to test the surface of the runestone. The History channel only presented Wolter's evidence and his belief the runestone is authentic - but maybe you prefer to rely on outdated assumptions of it's being a forgery made back when it was first uncovered by a farmer in a field.

I'm not going to bother recounting Wolter's evidence based on his 2005 analysis since that was already covered by the History channel. Since you haven't bothered to educate yourself on these new findings, or to even read Wolter's book or for that matter the 1993 dating report, then I'll leave you to your ignorance, while you go on "debunking" something your obviously are not very familiar with.

As to the 1993 dating, did you not even bother to read Sinclair's response to that report? The dating wasn't based on hundreds of samples, only 10, 7 of which were thrown out for being too "anomalous", and averaging the remaining 3. And still the dating gave a range from 1410 to 1700 according to its conductor. If even one sample of mortar dates to the 1400's, then that establishes the earliest date this structure was built.

There seems to be a lack of critical thinking when reviewing these sorts of tests. The Newport Tower is a stone tower with mortar. It potentially can be from 300 to 500 years old. How often do you think the mortar would have been replaced? How many repairs would such a structure have had made? Do we simply assume that ALL the mortar in the tower is the ORIGINAL mortar? No repairs to the mortar or modification to the tower were ever made in the 1500's, the 1600's, the 1700's and so on? Yet samples from any of these periods are going to be lumped together with the average date being given as the building date for the tower. And to add insult to injury, ALL the stylistic connections to the round churches of Gotland are going to be ignored, especially the fireplace on the second floor.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Wow, Hans, seems to me like all you can do on this board is sling insults after insults.

Clean up your act, every single debate you partake in you drag into the mud by passing off insults instead of doing any research on your end, falling back to pseudo-academic dogma.

I've gotta tell you, accepting less than peer reviewed academic publishing isn't slinging insults...it's simply not drinking the koolaid. Hans sets the bar high...but as one who has debated him, he sets it right where it ought to be.

There's a lot of merit in a story well told...but it ain't science and anything less remains questionable.