It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

1362-The Kensington Runestone

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


How about this one, it doesnt refute them per se, but it does make one consider the possibility that its not colonial


Some Reservations about the Newport Tower C-14 Dates

J. Huston McCulloch
August, 2001

This paper was published in the Midwestern Epigraphic Journal, Vol. 15, 2001, pp. 79-92.

In a widely cited 1997 paper, Johannes Hertz raises a number of arguments against a pre-Colonial origin for the famous Newport, Rhode Island Stone Tower. Hertz insists that it was modeled after the 17th century Chesterton Mill in Warwickshire, England, and points out that a 1948-9 survey by Hugh Hencken and William S. Godfrey found indisputably colonial artifacts at the bottom of a trench that surrounds the foundations. He extensively discusses the recent carbon-14 dating of the mortar by Jan Heinemeier and Högne Jungner (HJ, 1994). According to HJ, their tests indicate that the Tower was built not earlier than 1635 AD, and most likely in the range 1651-1679.

Architect Suzanne Carlson, writing already in 1996 in response to the 1994 Danish original of Hertz's article, persuasively refutes Hertz's architectural and historical objections: Even Johannes Brønsted, whom Hertz approvingly cites, admitted that "the Romanesque lines of the tower are so striking that if the tower stood in Europe, probably no one would contradict a date in the middle ages" (in Hertz 1997, p. 75). Carlson argues that Chesterton Mill was in fact built as an observatory, and only much later converted to use as a mill. She points out that the trench discovered during the 1948-9 survey makes sense as part of a colonial repair of a pre-existing tower for use as a windmill, after an earlier mill blew down in 1675. Furthermore, this trench does not work as part of the original construction, because it lacks any evidence of the presence of the staging that would have been necessary to have supported the arches. Instead, its backfill contains thousands of mortar fragments, as would be expected if it were opened as part of a repair operation.

However, Carlson admits that she, as an architect, does not understand the highly technical carbon-14 dating of the mortar. I have had a little chemical training (as an undergraduate at Caltech), and some prior familiarity with dendrocalibration, which is an important complication in the HJ paper. Perhaps they or someone else will be able to correct me, but my reading of their paper is that although the C-14 results are certainly consistent with a 17th century colonial origin for the tower, they by no means conclusively rule out a pre-Columbian origin.


and


When we scrutinize HJ's Table 1, we find some further problems with their dates. Pure calcium carbonate contains about 60% carbonate by weight. Several of their samples contain less than 10% carbonate, and on this criterion HJ reject them. However, they do not explain what is present, if not calcium carbonate. If the difference is primarily unreacted calcium hydroxide, there is a serious slow reaction problem that potentially affects all the dates. On the other hand, if the other material is primarily inert silica sand, there is no particular indication that the remaining calcium carbonate is in any way contaminated, and these samples should be no worse than any of the others. Since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) methods are being used to measure the amount of C-14, valid results can often be obtained with even very small amounts of carbon. Small sample size might result in a large standard error, and therefore could be a valid criterion for forgoing the expense of a test, but is not per se a valid criterion for rejecting test results once they have been performed, so long as the standard error is not unusually large as a result. Thus, two samples contained 2.0% or less carbonate and were legitimately not even tested. However, sample 8 from the fireplace was tested despite containing only 5.8% carbonate, but then was inappropriately excluded from the final estimates of the age of the Tower, even though its standard error was only 70 years, less than on two of the five samples that were included in the final estimate (75 and 90).

It is very significant that the preferred first fraction of carbon extracted from the inappropriately excluded sample 8 gives a negative uncalibrated C-14 date of -110 BP, or in other words, 2060 AD! (BP = "Before Present", i.e. before 1950, the approximate date when radiocarbon dating was developed.) Because atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons since 1945 has made recent decades appear to be far in the future before calibration, this does not literally mean that the mortar tested in 1993 had atmospheric carbon from the 21st century. However, it does indicate, after calibration, that the carbon was from some date after 1945, long after the Tower is known to have been built. HJ make no comment on this impossible date for the construction, but instead merely drop it from consideration on the inappropriate criterion of the low carbonate concentration per se. In fact, sample 8 appears to exhibit a more severe case of substitution bias than I would have imagined possible, despite Hertz's assurances (1997, p. 93) that rainwater contamination "could be excluded."


and it hosted on a reputable site, Ohio-state.edu

www.econ.ohio-state.edu...




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
just putting this out there..dunno if anyone's brought it up yet.. ..

there does lie the possibility that a previous owner had it in possession and brought it there in relative recent history.. from Europe.. say.. a connoisseur of ancient artifacts perhaps?

and it was misplaced somehow.. ended up where the guy found it?

-



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   


( Rune symbol X Gyfu Gift, opportunities, teamwork)

janetboyer.com...

" Reversed: Some say there is no reverse for this rune, while others say that its illegality, loss, or impotence "


I was watching warehouse 13 and they had mentioned an Egyptian symbol that remind me of this marking as if two crossed symbols of power or unions.

www.egyptianmyths.net...

Although obviously not the same as pictured in the hand of Horus, it does make me wonder about these origins and secret meanings.

www.egyptianmyths.net...

Looking at it in this one, it looks more like a walking cane for the handicapped or elderly. Not doubt these people had arthritus at younger ages and shorter lives. (whatever)


The one to the right also reminds me of a fireplace poker or stoker. No doubt they used these quite a bit back in 1362.

en.wikipedia.org...


The spear crossed with the fire poker may be a symbol and reminder of the death of those Templar Knights who died in 1312 at the stake and crossed with the spear of those who lived on to fight. The runestone than said to represent a stake or claim for a new castle and land and eventually a cornerstone, which I believe was mentioned on the History Channel documentary.

upload.wikimedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I think it's great that some of the truth about our history is finally coming out that we weren't taught in text books.

Even a history professor I had met during summer school had mentioned some of these secrets that weren't in our text books then. That was in the 70's.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by aleon1018]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


Howdy Punkinworks

Well that is an interesting find. I see you have working hard. Finding stuff on a University server is not always an indication of quality however.



That paper was published in a Midwestern local archaeology clubs publication. It is an ...An organization concerned with the study and scientific research of epigraphy, ancient history, and archaeology, particularly as it applies to precolumbian visits to the Americas by members of high cultures." It was set up by Barry Fells a well known believer of various visits of cultures to the Americas.


David H. Kelley, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary who is credited with a major breakthrough in the decipherment of Mayan glyphs, complained about Fell in a 1990 essay: "Fell's work [contains] major academic sins, the three worst being distortion of data, inadequate acknowledgment of predecessors, and lack of presentation of alternative views." However those comments reflect only on the possible lack of impartiality of the magazine and not the article in question.

The magazine is an open forum and will print anything on the subject. So although a good find it is not published in a peer reviewed publication.

Hmmmm I think what we need to do is find the original 1993 paper or report. That should cast some light on the methodologies used.

Howdy Blackmarketeer

Yep the bar is high, real science. Again explain why only 17th century artifacts were found in the archaeology excavations?

In L'Anse aux Meadows you had a plethora of Norse items, a complete community. In the Newport case you do have a complete community also. A 17th century one, no sign of an earlier occupation.

So where is the earlier community?

Personally I'd like it to be Norse building but the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

To throw some more information on the fire.

This is a September 2007 report, a good review of the research up to now
and of the latest excavation which found nothing earlier than 17th century. However the ground has been disturbed by building of the park.

No mention of any native American materials-which I find interesting.

tower_project_report_2007.pdf

Of course this report comes from the same organization that came up with or reported some of the "astronomical" links - not realizing I guess that any building with windows can/will do the same.

There is also a link for a you have to pay for it document
Dating of mortar

I cannot get that thru my organizations Proquest subscription




[edit on 29/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Hello Hans, you've yet to address a single issue raised questioning the origin of the tower, instead sidestepping them to play semantics about reports.

In your reply to Pumpkinworks you took a quote without providing any source, then abbreviated the quote, stopping short of where the speaker also lauds Fells work - was it then your contention to disparage all of Fells work or even that of an unrelated author (J. Huston McCulloch)?

To finish that quote:

In the same essay, however, Kelley went on to acknowledge that, "I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported [by Fell] are genuine Celtic ogham." Kelley concluded: "Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no [North American] ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World."


The questions raised by McCulloch (and others) are quite valid - to wit:


HJ (the administrators of the AMS dating in question) admit that there are two factors that potentially could make the measured age of the mortar appear younger than the true age of the construction.

The first of these is slow absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The surface of the mortar sets up quickly - in as little as a few hours. The interior portions of the mortar will ordinarily set up eventually, but this requires carbon dioxide to diffuse through pores in the mortar, either in gaseous form, or in solution in the water that has been added to the slake lime. Depending on how easy it is for the gas to find such pores and work its way through them, this could take a considerable time. On p. 38, they claim that the effect should be limited to a few years, yet on p. 40, they admit that in the case of the two medieval Finnish churches discussed below, some samples still exhibited an alkaline reaction, indicating the presence of some unreacted calcium hydroxide, approximately 700 years after their construction! Because of this slow absorption, the estimated date will not reflect the actual date of construction, but some weighted average of later dates, even if at the time of testing the reaction appears to have been complete. Surprisingly, HJ do not report having even tested the Newport Tower samples for residual alkalinity.

The second problem, which they just mention and then drop, is recrystallization of the carbonate. It is well known that the calcium carbonate in bone is not very reliable for C-14 dating, because the original carbonate ions may exchange with carbonate in the groundwater that might be either too old - if it represent dissolved limestone - or too young - if it contains atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved in rainwater. For this reason, the preferred method of dating bone is to isolate the bone collagen, which contains carbon, but in a more stable form. Similarly, lime mortar that is exposed to rain on a regular basis may contain carbonate that dates not from when the mortar first set up, but from much later rainstorms that may have drenched the structure.

A third factor that might make their tests give too young a date, mentioned by Hertz but not by HJ, is the possibility of colonial repairs or "tuck-pointing" to strengthen a pre-existing structure for conversion to a windmill. In this case, the surface mortar might be colonial, while only the deeper mortar, well inside the joints, would reflect the true date. According to Hertz (p. 93), test cores were taken deep enough to avoid contamination from both rainwater and later repairs. Nevertheless, some of the samples HJ took were in fact "prized out as whole pieces of mortar, and marked as surface samples. These whole samples ... are expected to yield the most reliable results as the crushing of the mortar can be done under controlled laboratory conditions, resulting in a more effective mechanical separation of the fossil carbonate from the samples." (HJ p. 36) One of these surface samples, from the flue above the fireplace, was in fact used to construct their composite date for the Tower's construction, contrary to the impression given by Hertz. HJ themselves make no mention that the other samples were taken with a care to avoid repairs.


So some mortar tested gave dates as recent as the mid-20th c., but those are cast aside. What caused these spurious "too new" results? Rainwater contamination? The advent of industrialization? Out of 10 samples tested 7 are rejected because of these spurious results. How can any of the results then be reliable? I see more authors questioning and rejecting this one test as "proof" of the towers colonial origin. McCulloch even raised the same issue I had - that tuck-pointing mortar might "give too young a date". Indeed it would, and their (HJ's) efforts to avoid this possibility also appear to be haphazard.

You make a big deal out of a lack of remains from any medieval settlements associated with the tower. Are you aware of Carl Sagans famous quote; "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even when evidence does seem to turn up, it is immediately labeld a fraud by "academics" for no reason other than it falls outside the box. There's evidence of Norse settlements in Greenland, of where Sinclairs party is claimed to have launched their exploratory mission. Native American historian Evan Pritchard states Sinclair established a settlement in the 14th century in Canada's Nova Scotia among the Micmac. The exploratory mission by the Norse and Sinclair was not a colonization effort. What wood remnants (such as those buried alongside the tower as a probable ambulatory) are hardly detectable, even when looking for such remains. The sites in the area have been heavily built over since colonial times and much would have been lost. More importantly, Pritchard establishes that early Nordic explorations may well have cohabited among the native Micmac Indians. The tower, being an observation tower for determining the time (in addition to it's church duties) was certainly their only stone edifice.

Back to the OP, Wolter's analysis concludes that the runic inscriptions on the Kensington stone showed signs af having aged at least 50 years in the earth before it's removal, in addition to the chemical bleaching caused by contact with the tree roots that entangled the stone. In fact the stone was found beneath a tree (and entangled with the aforementioned tree roots) that was 40 years old at the time Ohman found it. Even the runes, the source of so much ridicule and cause of claims of fraud, have been uncovered, in no less a place than 14th c. Gotland, and the Greenland and Mass sites.

What's strange is when academics become so boxed in by their preconceptions and prejudices that even when evidence is before them they'll die before admitting they may need to rethink their history. But nevermind all that, let's just stick with our 1950's era textbooks and "silly" notions C. Columbus discovered America.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hey there hans,
actually I stumbled across that one, but the reasoning in the paper is sound.
I hate to dwell on the tower so much but it is possibly linked to the question at hand.
The author brings up some very good points about the '93 dating study.
For me the question of the tower is 50/50 either way at this point.
The c14 studies are not conclusive if the authors interpretations of the data are correct.
The architectural details, such as the offset columns, which has been observed in templar/cistercian round churches in europe.
The 8 sided basic geometry, all templar churches have an 8 sided configuration, just as the templar cross has 8 corners.
Have no idea what the 8 represents but its part of the templar mysticism.
A recent excavation has turned up what might be the remnants of the wooden poles that would have held up the ambulatory, that would have been 4 meters wide, encircling the stone structure.
The local architectural historians say its not early colonial, because they worked in wood.
And the only reference of it by gov. arnold is in his will, there is no record of him building it.
If it was built in the late 1670's the it was sorely neglected, because by the 1770's, it was already a just a shell.

From this



to this in less than 100 years

www.chronognostic.org...
the tower in 1777


And since we have no actual record that arnold built it, isnt it just as likely that he refered to it as a stone built windmill, because thats the only thing he could relate such a structure to?

any way its all very interesting either way



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Hello Punkinworks



Hey there hans,
actually I stumbled across that one, but the reasoning in the paper is sound.


Hans: Er why? Remember its not someone looking to obtain truth but to convert you to their side of an argument. They are using adversial truth and ignoring everything that doesn't support their case.




I hate to dwell on the tower so much but it is possibly linked to the question at hand. The author brings up some very good points about the '93 dating study.


Hans: it would appear they don’t understand probable errors. There is a 95% probably that the AMS date are correct (colonial construction). Scientists use three probable errors as the basis for a good decision.


For me the question of the tower is 50/50 either way at this point.

Hans: I’m bias towards a Norse occupation but the complete lack of evidence points to colonial so I'm 99% with 1% with some oddity but that is purely speculation.




The c14 studies are not conclusive if the authors interpretations of the data are correct.


Hans: They are if you accept the scientific methodology of probable errors. If you want to be very bold and go outside that then you need more evidence, which is lacking.




The architectural details, such as the offset columns, which has been observed in templar/cistercian round churches in europe.


Hans: Leading one to imagine that Europeans (Colonial) built it instead of guys who were born in Iceland and Greenland where such structures were rare.




The 8 sided basic geometry, all templar churches have an 8 sided configuration, just as the templar cross has 8 corners.


Hans: The tower is circular with eight legs so I think that is a stretch. If one uses that as a predictor one would have to survey all eight legged structures to see if they were Templar constructions?




A recent excavation has turned up what might be the remnants of the wooden poles that would have held up the ambulatory, that would have been 4 meters wide, encircling the stone structure.


Hans: I couldn’t find a report on that excavation can you link to it please?




The local architectural historians say its not early colonial, because they worked in wood.


Hans: Hmmmm, I can recall Colonials building in stone in Maine, perhaps they meant Rhode Island?




And the only reference of it by gov. arnold is in his will, there is no record of him building it. If it was built in the late 1670's the it was sorely neglected, because by the 1770's, it was already a just a shell.



Hans: It may have been burned in the King Phillip’s war, it was blown up in the Revolutionary war too – that can do some damage. Most educated people of that time were interested in odd things. There is no mention of the tower as an oddity, or being unusual in anyway. I think the colonists would have commented on a stone tower being there when they arrived. The Gov thought it was his a wind mill - I wonder why he would have thought that?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hans: So Blackmarketeer do you actually think this is true? Your quote “But nevermind all that, let's just stick with our 1950's era textbooks and "silly" notions C. Columbus discovered America” We’ve known since 1960 that the Norse got here first (well besides the native Americans) – are you unaware of that?


Hans: Sidestepping? The archaeological implications of the dating and archaeological finds are the two most critical items - the other stuff is window dressing.




Deleted a bunch of stuff


Hans: I would suggest you look up a concept called ‘probable error’.




You make a big deal out of a lack of remains from any medieval settlements associated with the tower. Are you aware of Carl Sagans famous quote; "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Hans: Yes, so based on no evidence we could say the tower was built by Arabs fleeing the destruction of Bagdad by the Mongol...... however like so many others you have taken the quote out of context the actual context –means something you might not agree with

Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
o Chapter 12, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", page 221

As noted it means the opposite of what you want it to mean




Stuff on Sinclair


Hans: Wood driven into soil leaves an impression that is easy to detect, again read Renfrew’s Archaeology 101




The sites in the area have been heavily built over since colonial times and much would have been lost.


Hans: Not built over but disturbed by treasure hunters and development of the park




More importantly, Pritchard establishes that early Nordic explorations may well have cohabited among the native Micmac Indians.


Hans: Proof of same is? How was this 'established'?




The tower, being an observation tower for determining the time (in addition to it's church duties) was certainly their only stone edifice.


Hans: For an observation tower it certainly has small windows....You don’t need a tower to determine the time. It is certainly an odd church....

As noted before I’m neutral on the aspects of the Runestone. Considering its minor effect on history. I cannot imagine that a vast conspiracy you believe is lined up against it. People have different interpretation of the stone. The runestone is not needed to verify the existence of the Norse in NA we already knew that. If it were true then it would expand their contact time and extend of penetration. Something up to this time not verified by archaeology or the Indians themselves.


[edit on 29/9/09 by Hanslune]

[edit on 29/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

You make a big deal out of a lack of remains from any medieval settlements associated with the tower. Are you aware of Carl Sagans famous quote; "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even when evidence does seem to turn up, it is immediately labeld a fraud by "academics" for no reason other than it falls outside the box.

Your quote of Sagan's "famous" statement about absence of evidence is not contextual.

The truth is, Sagan was sarcastically describing the way fringe "researchers" operate.

In science, and in fact, "absence of evidence" is the only indication possible for absence in fact.

Otherwise, one must prove a negative - never a requirement in logic or in science.

Harte

[edit on 9/29/2009 by Harte]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

Howdy Harte

Yeah I always love the use of that phrase-as noted above it was used by Sagan to be negative to the idea not positive




Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

o Chapter 12, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", page 221




[edit on 29/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I just joined ATS. I watched a history channel documentary titled Holy Grail in America about the Kensington Rune Stone. Then I found your thread and joined because the site was explained to be serious.

I have a personal story to tell that I assume since you are part of this forum would want to know about. I’ve tried to bring it up in other sites but all I get is insulted by people who do not want to accept what is being written nor refute it intelligently. I don't want to be repeatedly harangued for simply trying to relate what this is about. I will however point out that this story is unbelievable. So I do understand why it is met with hostility. If I were hearing it from someone else, I might feel the same way. But I grew up understanding the details of it as handed down to me by my family. If you knew my last name, some of you would know right off that what I say may indeed be based in fact.

I can back up everything I say. I have been researching this topic for a very long time looking for ways to tell it in a way so that it can’t be dismissed. It’s ironic that as I am getting to that point in my career, much of the story is already finding a popular mainstream audience on its own.

If you want to hear a story related to the Kensington Rune Stone and the Templars that has never been heard before and changes everything you know about ,,, many things, I am only going to go so far as I am allowed to tell it without running into a lot of disrespectful resistance. I love being challenged but please don’t do it if there is no way you will accept what I am saying even when supported by irrefutable facts. Please just save us both the trouble as there are probably people here who would like to hear this story whether it is true or not and then decide for themselves what they think about it.

In all honestly, it would be much easier for me to sell this story as fiction, and just as profitable if The Da Vinci Code is an example of how far being partly true can carry this story. If the world were not ready for the truth, I actually would write it as fiction as a way to inspire a need for it. But that work has preceded me so I am hoping this can be the beginning of something big.

The question is do you have a confidence in yourself to believe that the truth could walk up to you and ask you for directions. That is what happens with most people when trying to relate details about what is behind the Templar/ Freemason story, they are reacted as if someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. But the truth is that they don’t believe their eyes were meant to see such things for the first time.

Let me make myself clear, this is not a hoax. I am randomly choosing this forum at this time and you are the people reading it. Perhaps it would be more believable if you watched it come out on History Channel with millions of other people. But I am starting here. If you want to do this, let’s get started.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by clandestiny
 


Well, go for it. If we weren't a little out there, we wouldn't frequent this site. You might well encounter some challenges in the course of your tale, but ultimately that just proves that folks are paying attention.

So...do tell...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I really don't know where to start. I am used to defending myself. That’s usually where I find a good potion to focus outward from. I have an ongoing debate with a Nobel Peace prize winning climatologist who I am drilling the final nail in the coffin of his CO2 global warming theory. He is a bit upset, finally got the old guy cussing at me. So I’m going to write his response and come back here to post it as a starting point because it’s relative to this topic, which just about everything going on in the world today is. So really challenging me, or asking questions, whichever you prefer, is the best way to go because it would take a few too many chapters to simply tell this story here.

If you are smart, you aren’t going to believe any of what I have to say until I prove myself. So don’t be shy in making me give up what it takes to win you over. It won’t take long unless you refuse to accept facts and move on because you don’t want to know the truth, which is what I usually encounter. It’s funny with conspiracy theorists, many of them are fine until shown what is really going on, which is the often the same for academics. At least that was what it was like before the economy collapsed. Since then, people are more respective to what I have to say.

The key word is patience. I know you won’t believe me at first. But if you let me further explain, it will all become clear, unless clarity is not what you want. And I won’t have time to wait for anyone to find out what they really want by being here.

I’ll be back shortly.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Response to Nobel laureate -

Ok settle down Einstein, I don't cuss because if I did, it would give you an excuse to walk away. I don't mind if you do cuss but if I start to after this, that excuse will no longer work. And I did read it. I have read it all,,, all that I need to read. And found it to be a whole lot of nonsense

This is my take on CO2. There can never be enough CO2 in the troposphere to cause warming here. I mean there can be but we would be dead long before that happened. As long as there are plants, the more troposphere CO2 there is, the more plants will grow putting out that much more oxygen to balance CO2 levels. If they stop doing this, we will die of suffocation long before the heat gets us.

The global warming concern is for stratospheric CO2 levels raising high enough that radiative forcing as the sun’s rays hit CO2 atoms causing a kinetic expression of their energy in the form of heat, in the stratosphere. We are talking about energy from the sun convecting in the stratosphere.

You are a big ozone hole believer. Why is it better for dangerous ultraviolet sun rays to express their energy in the ozone layer rather than down here? Of course, I agree with you, because those rays would bake us if the ozone layer was not there.

But what about all the heat at the outer reaches of the stratosphere? Aren’t we still at risk of that heat falling down to earth and still baking us? Again, of course I concur with you, that cannot happen because heat rises and simply radiates out into space.

But then you are saying sun rays hitting CO2 in the stratosphere will cause a magic kind of heat that sinks. I mean that is what you saying isn’t it. As long as the atmospheric build up of CO2 is in the stratosphere, why would there be a worry about its effects in the troposphere. In fact if we can agree the ozone layer protects the earth from warming by allowing sun rays to express their energy content in the outer reaches of the stratosphere, then wouldn’t it follow the any radiative forcing on stratospheric CO2 would be performing the same task actually providing a cooling rather then heating effect by preventing suns rays, that other wise would enter the troposphere, from making it this far into our atmosphere.

If our atmosphere was sealed, then there would be no place for that heat to go. Since it is not, when CO2 levels rise, the atmosphere expands, just as it does when you open a can of soda. So even if heat traveled down rather than out into space, since our atmosphere can expand, the ratio of CO2 in it will reduce with that expansion. So the question remains: What is causing climate change?

And try to wiggle out of this one saying that heat in the stratosphere is preventing heat from the troposphere from escaping. Heat rises. So radiative forcing on stratospheric CO2 would actually help create a kind of updraft to help cool the troposhere. It is cold air that sinks and might tend to hold heat underneath it until storm movements form and force it all to mix.

I believe I have made my case for mate quite clear. If your king is still standing, either you haven’t admitted the game is over or I have missed an option that you had better figure out how to show me soon or this game is over.

Set em up and start a new thread if you’re tapped out of strategies. , I’ll get us a couple of beers.

-Bobby

Ask me a question so I have a point if focus and we can take it from there.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by clandestiny
 


You seem to have gone off topic clandestiny. If you have something to contribute to the discussion about the Keningston Runestone or the Newport tower please do so.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
My comments have everything to do with the Kensington Runestone. Like I already pointed out, you can query me in any direction you wish. I can also take my discussion to a new topic thread is you prefer. I have a story to tell that is a little more complex than what you are used to. It is an ancient tale handed down to me by my family that is relevant to everything happening in the world today. The Kensington Runestone is key to telling it. I could let you read my book but I am writing a new book by telling the story this way. So that is out of the question.

I see by your signature comment that you have a scientific foundation from which you interpret information. Try and look at me as a potential piece of evidence and put me under a microscope. I have made some unbelievable claims so challenge them. I am open to any criticism you might bring to the conversation.

I am just an inert piece of evidence. I am what I am and nothing can change it. If you want to know if I am real or not, you have to first scratch the surface. My sense is that you have already made up your mind that I am not worth your time or you would have already done so. I encourage you to give this a second chance or you will later wish you had when you find out what I was trying to tell you about.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Flaws when using AMS dating - from American Scientist


Whether pure lime or mortar is used, the chemistry remains the same. The building lime (calcium hydroxide) reacts with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form calcium carbonate. But even in the hardening process there are potential problems. Mortar lying on the insides of walls or behind stone facings may take years or even decades to solidify, thus yielding a date that is too recent for the building as a whole. Also, mortar exposed to rain may recrystallize, thus resetting the radiocarbon clock long after the original hardening, making the sample again appear too recent.


This document also highlights problems when using c14 dating as well, again noting that the samples of a building (such as wood beams) may be newer than the original build date. AMS dating is supposed to eliminate that problem be ensuring only building material (mortar) original to the building is tested, but even that is contested - read on:


Scientists repudiate the AMS dating of Newport Tower


Working backwards, the carbon study as published has been methodically studied and its validity questioned by at least four qualified scientists. The sampling, testing, and interpretation of a new experimental technique was considered seriously flawed and the results dismissed by all of these researchers. (de Bethune, 1998, Guthrie, 1996, McCulloch,1996,and Watchman, 1996)



Radiocarbon Dating of the Newport Tower - Rob Carter
NEARA.ORG - Carbon Dating PDF


After hardening, fresh CO2 from the air penetrates into the mortar and swaps its C with one of the original ones. This process is accelerated in the presence of moisture, and it also results in “too young” error. (This one is difficult to understand intuitively unless you have a feeling for chemistry, and it is the hardest of these error sources to document. It has, however, been confirmed by experi­ment as an significant error source.)



In closing, here are the words of NEARA author and chemist Jim Guthrie who generously contributed his time to review and comment on the references cited in this article: “The radiocarbon data reinforce conclusions from several other lines of evidence that the Newport Tower is pre-Colonial. However, they do not provide conclusive evidence of antiquity because the methods of mortar and plaster dating are not yet well developed and the sampling was insufficient for proper statistical analysis. Nevertheless, the data generated by Heinemeier and Jungner contain valuable information and we should be grateful for their pioneering attempt.”


Reading through this document you'll uncover several points raised by these researchers that gave them cause to believe the AMS radiocarbon dating of Newport Tower was seriously flawed. They conclude the tower is of pre-colonial construction, based on their interpretation of the same set of data used by HJ in their 1993 analysis.

One of their objections is the very same objection I raised, that their method of collection is no guarantee the sample mortar is original to the construction date, and NOT a newer repair. The alleged colonial conversion to a windmill also included a coating of plaster, a photo of which was included already in this thread.


A treatise that covers several possible architectural origins for Newport Tower

New England Antiquities Research Association - Loose Threads in a Tapestry of Stone: The Architecture of the Newport Tower

This treatise compares the tower to similar architectural styles in Europe over several centuries.

Wolter and the History program also compare the tower to several round churches in Gotland, which include the Bornholm churches. Suzanne Carlson writes in Loose Threads in a Tapestry of Stone: The Architecture of the Newport Tower the following,in her search for similar architectural towers to the one in Newport:

By adding a usable second story or stories, my search has produced only one example, the lavabos included in the cloisters of Cistercian Monasteries, a lavabo being an enclosure surrounding a water basin meant for ablutions before religious exercises or meals. In my lavabo hunt, I have found a full range of medieval design from the solid Norman structure at Mellifont in Ireland, to the French flowery southern gothic at Valmagne near Montpellier, France. An odd little lavabo in Germany features a conical roof with a jerkin head, another German example defies the rules of Cistercian austerity and sports a fairy-tale half timbered upper story. The octagonal tower in Ghent cited as a source of inspiration for the tower turns out to be a lavabo of sorts as well.

The lavabo is connected to the Cistercian monks, which Wolter contends were part of Sinclairs exploratory expedition to the Americas. Stylistically the tower is medieval, and doesn't contain any of the refinements of 17th c. colonial architecture.

Further, CRF has published their reports detailing remnants of a wooden ambulatory structure discovered beneath the Touro parks concrete walks in direct alignment with the towers piers (for the clueless, an ambulatory would negate any use of the tower as a windmill). They also have depicted the interior of the tower which makes it easy to compare to similar medieval Cistercian architecture.
Chronognostic.org - Means Elevation
Chronognostic.org - Tower Project Report
Chronognostic.org - Newport Tower Extension (remnant post features)


Wolter's work

In his book, Wolter mentions the recent excavations at Newport Tower, where he writes about the possible ambulatory; "two possible wooden posts at the right distance from the columns to form an arcade (ambulatory)". Even more surprising was the discovery of a piece of shell with mortar attached dating to 1450 plus or minus.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
@Harte
You grossly flubbed the intent behind Sagan's quote, which he actually borrowed from astronomer Martin Rees, who coined the phrase in support of his belief in extraterrestrial life (who's critics used a lack of evidence of extraterrestrial life as proof it didn't exist). You can't prove something doesn't exist. My use of this phrase is more than "contextual" in this post regarding Hansluns attempt to "prove" the Newport tower can't be medieval based on the lack of evidence of a nearby medieval settlement. (In fact there is such evidence in the form of several rune stones located in the area, as well as the presence on Vikings in America going back to 1000 AD.) I've noticed this tendency on Hans part to use straw man or ad-hominem arguments to support his "debunking" stances.

For example: The tower can't be medieval because no medieval settlements are in the area, is a straw man argument using the existence of a settlement (evidence regarding of which may or may not be accepted) as a proof the tower is or is not also medieval. Such an argument attempts to link the tower to other potentially unrelated activities in the area. We don't know the intent of the builders, and whether or not they were attempting to create a settlement or only an exploration encampment, the habitats of which may vary drastically. We don't know why they left or why Viking explorers abandoned exploration in America.

Next is Hanslunes repeated use of "ad hominem" attacks, assailing the evidence not based on it's own merit but rather on the merits of the source presenting the evidence. Throughout this thread he used this to attack the History channel and the epigraphic society, rather than presenting any form of credible response to their presentation of Wolter's evidence. I suppose we're all to assume this topic is bunk simply because the History channel featured it in one of their programs.


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

See above, you can look up de Bethune, 1998, Guthrie, 1996, McCulloch,1996,and Watchman, 1996, papers that refute the 1993 AMS dates.


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

Again, this is a straw man argument. Using a "lack of evidence for pre-colonial finds" as a proof the tower is not pre-colonial. Judge the tower on it's own merits and it's strong similarities to the Cistercian monasteries of 14th c. Gotland. Of course many will tell you there is an abundance of pre-17th c. archeological finds throughout New England and along the Viking routes through Greenland and Iceland, the runestones themselves being the most prominent. You could also claim Columbus never set foot in America because there is no archeological evidence to support it.


Hans: Of course this report comes from the same organization that came up with or reported some of the "astronomical" links - not realizing I guess that any building with windows can/will do the same

The astronomical alignments are at solstices, the small carefully shaped windows allow the sun to light an egg shaped keystone or a sill mark, the most important one is the solstice alignment that highlights Easter, something of great import to the Cistercians and Templars (based on Catholicism). These aren't random occurrences and are way out of place in a "windmill". Wolter also briefly describes the astronomical alignments discovered by Professor William Penhallow." These are not perfect, but if one makes allowance for stellar drift they apparently work out, fairly well for the period 1200 to 1600AD" Which fits nicely with his contention that the tower was used for observing solstices, much needed in an era before printed almanacs of the colonial period. Wolter continues with "Some of the solar alignments within the tower make use of keystones on the inside of the arches. The shape, relative size and placing of keystones have distinct Masonic significance. The timing of the fall of the light on the keystones has led Vance Teague to say "It appears the Newport Tower is in synch with the daily monastic prayer cycle for the Rule of Bendecict" (circa 530 to 543 and is contemporaneous with the time of Saint Brendan" as related to the practices of the Cistercian monks.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Next is Hanslunes repeated use of "ad hominem" attacks, assailing the evidence not based on it's own merit but rather on the merits of the source presenting the evidence. Throughout this thread he used this to attack the History channel and the epigraphic society, rather than presenting any form of credible response to their presentation of Wolter's evidence.


I would provide two maxims from the archaeological profession:
"One date is no date" and
"As an epigrapher, Barry Fell is one heck of a marine biologist".

Believe what you want to, but it's all about standards of evidence. If the proof is there, the story will change accordingly. You can always enter the profession yourself and base a Master's on the Tower.

Or you can chase evidence that agrees with a notion that you happen to like.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Oh my



Flaws when using AMS dating - from American Scientist


Hans: Ah a real publication well done Blackmarketeer. Unfortunately you failed to read this properly. It was describing what could be wrong (which you quoted from) then failed to note – did you actually miss this or did you do it deliberately?- stated the following....Here is what the paper says on page two,

>>>>>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



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join