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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Did you not even bother to read the reports linked to by BlackM Hans? They include comments made by the team that conducted the test (HJ) stating they can't rule out dates from the 14th c. The men you disparage so blithely (I would agree, you're using ad-hominem attacks) are also doctorates and scientists. It appears you are engaging in "cherry picking" as to what YOU want to believe.

The team HJ also have not made it clear how they obtained their samples, given the entire tower has for centuries been fully open to the elements (allowing rainwater to contaminate the mortar) or that mortar itself may take decades to cure (giving false younger ages), these flaws were addressed in the comments made by those gentlemen, and you, in typical fashion, ignored the comments instead making an ad-hominem attack on their character.

BTW the viking explorers left a trail of evidence of their presence in America, several rune stones in the vicinity of Newport Tower support theories the tower may be of their origin.

There is NO conclusive evidence the tower was built in colonial times, and the AMS test shows flaws in dating. Mentioning a tower in one's will is not a proof you built it.

Good posts BlackM and Pumpkinworks, it's great to see when "science" becomes so arrogant that those who profess to practice it can't admit when errors are made.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   


Did you not even bother to read the reports linked to by BlackM Hans?



Hans: Yes I did and as some of the links are to documents others and myself have linked to before I’ve seen them several times now – did YOU read them?




They include comments made by the team that conducted the test (HJ) stating they can't rule out dates from the 14th c.


Hans: Yes that is right but again you and BM don’t understand probable error, the date of 1680 is 95% probable, the 14th is probably less than 1%...go with the one you think is best. But if you coupled that with the complete lack of 14th century remains that gives you a clue on where the truth is.



The men you disparage so blithely (I would agree, you're using ad-hominem attacks) are also doctorates and scientists.


Hans: Like who?




It appears you are engaging in "cherry picking" as to what YOU want to believe.



Hans: I take into consideration all data and would gladly – I’d love - for the tower to be Norse and would accept same if we had a 10-14th century date with associated artefacts. We don’t we have 17th century artefacts with a 17th century date...it is really that simple.




The team HJ also have not made it clear how they obtained their samples, given the entire tower has for centuries been fully open to the elements (allowing rainwater to contaminate the mortar) or that mortar itself may take decades to cure (giving false younger ages), these flaws were addressed in the comments made by those gentlemen, and you, in typical fashion, ignored the comments instead making an ad-hominem attack on their character.


Hans: Do you ever listen to yourself? You are outlining how the dates are wrong yet earlier you said a date from the 14th century couldn’t be ruled out. Let me be clear. To be make any sense at all Frank you need to accept one of two positions: The dates are flawed-no dates are accepted Or the dates are accept, the tests are not flawed. You cannot keep switching between them. Pointing out that peoples publications are NOT peer reviewed is not a personal attack, its an observation of reality.




BTW the viking explorers left a trail of evidence of their presence in America, several rune stones in the vicinity of Newport Tower support theories the tower may be of their origin.


Hans: Some evidence is accepted but much of what I think you are thinking of is not. Again apples and oranges. L’Anse aux Meadows is a real site compare it to the Newport tower. It has both dates and artefacts.




There is NO conclusive evidence the tower was built in colonial times. and the AMS test shows flaws in dating



Hans: No flaws in dating that has been established a number of times. Very little in archaeology is ‘conclusive’ however we have no evidence of it being Norse, not one thing




Mentioning a tower in one's will is not a proof you built it.


Hans: True but it also means you don’t think its anything special – which a stone tower in ‘virgin’ America would have been to the colonists. Instead of a mysterious unknown tower we have a stone wind mill, hmmmm




Good posts BlackM and Pumpkinworks, it's great to see when "science" becomes so arrogant that those who profess to practice it can't admit when errors are made.


Hans: Then why don’t you guys read what been written and admit the errors? LOL I’m getting tired of pointing them out to you over and over again. The ‘stamping your feet and I refuse to believe’ is getting a bit thin.

Recap, despite a number of attempts no peer reviewed published paper has been produced that refutes the AMS tower dating. The one peer review published paper link to clearly stated that the tower was colonial. Two, despite several archaeological digs nothing of earlier than the 17th century has been found.

I'm reposting a part of my earlier message because it clearly indicates you gentlemen read into things and create words and worlds that don't exist

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hans: Please compare your comment below to the quote you provided

>>>>From a excavation report "two possible wooden posts at the right distance from the columns to form an arcade (ambulatory)".



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence
BTW the viking explorers left a trail of evidence of their presence in America, several rune stones in the vicinity of Newport Tower support theories the tower may be of their origin.


Excellent! Could you provide the scientifically validated information for us?


There is NO conclusive evidence the tower was built in colonial times, and the AMS test shows flaws in dating. Mentioning a tower in one's will is not a proof you built it.


The point is that there is no conclusive evidence at all...


Good posts BlackM and Pumpkinworks, it's great to see when "science" becomes so arrogant that those who profess to practice it can't admit when errors are made.


What errors? Is it an error to say "Show me the goods"?

There might be erroneous conclusions reached based upon the best available evidence of the day....but L'ans aux Meadows and Monte Verde prove that the system works. The error is in accepting a lower standard of evidence and building a whole new 'history' out of it. I cited the Moundbuilders as a prime example.

Understand the concept of peer-reviewed science...one has to provide proof to those who are at least as knowledgeable in the subject as you are. You, in turn, would have us change our paradigm based upon something that some guy said on the internet. I know where my bet goes...

And I gotta confess, when I see remarks about the "arrogance of 'science' " ...it puts me in mind of the movie "Idiocracy".



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Howdy Johnny

I along with a team of archaeologists spent several years in Cyprus looking for a bronze age city that we believed was one of the ones that corresponded with the Pharoah. We found many bronze age sites, one fair sized city (Kalavassos) and warehouses of stuff - but never proof it was THAT city. We found signs of trade from Egypt and Mesopotamia but never proof that an Egyptian had been there.

We never got to put that crucial confirmation into our publications - because if we had someone would have said, lets see it....and we didn't have it.

Hey one good thing - at least a claim that the evil gub'mint is hiding the evidence hasn't been made.

[edit on 1/10/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
If the tower is key to finding the runestone so that no map had to be created that might fall into the wrong hands leading the discovery of the Templar treasure, which is implied to be behind this mystery, the tower itself stands on eight legs where it could easily have failed to still exist in its present form. Does this mean that it’s use has likely served its purpose?

Like with the shaft at Oak Island, it was designed in such a way that it reveals no answers but distracts seekers of the treasure indefinitely by forcing them to try and figure out how to decipher the obstacles placed there. If the Templar’s were as crafty as their heritage dictates, if they hid a treasure of great importance, they would most definitely have created elaborate hoaxes to act as decoys to finding the real thing, or simply to give the impression they still had the treasure. I mean the banking system they created is a fractional reserve credit system. So if there was no treasure but it was believed that there was, like if it had sunk at sea, or if the Templar downfall was a hoax by the King of France and Pope who coordinated it with the .s of the Templar’s to act as cover for wealth they lost through corruption, then they could retrieves that wealth for themselves through a banking system as long as their investors believed the treasure was safe, in essence, stealing the money twice. It wouldn’t be much different than what just happened with the collapsing economy and the way it was supposedly fixed. So this theory certainly not totally without precedent.

Either way, it looks like the tower is a purposely created distraction to give the impression that there truly is a treasure. Everything about the Templar mysteries are elaborated by its creators in such a way as to demand there is a secret behind it. But then that is not in any way the nature of secrets. So it is wise to be prudent in analyzing details that were purposely left behind as pieces of a puzzle that serves the agenda it is builders.

If the obvious is a lie, then the truth may lie in what’s hidden. If in seeking a hidden truth, all that is found is lies, perhaps the answers lie right out in the open for all too see where no one would look. I mean if the Templar’s survived through Freemasonry, then founded this country around it and their banking system, why did they set up these schemes to draw so much attention to these so called mysteries? It doesn’t seem likely that it’s because they wanted to keep it secret. So it has to be assumed that they want certain information to become public knowledge but they don’t want anyone to know that they want it to be made public. Since it hasn’t been made public yet, whatever plan they have for it in their grand scheme of things hasn’t happened yet. This means that in whatever role they play in world affairs right now, they are setting the stage for some kind of revelation that they fabricated the discovery of, unless of course they gave up on the plan and want the details of it to remain secret, which doesn’t make sense when looking at the state of the world and the amount of attention being drawn to Templar mysteries.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
@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.

Sorry, but no. What I said was the same as what Sagan said.

I note that you seem to use the terms "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably. While I would certainly agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence, the phrase you used says no such thing.

In fact, there is only one possible evidence of absence, and that would be absence of evidence. It's in my sig, so it must be true! LOL

Of course, evidence is not proof and evidence can be wrong (ask O J Simpson about that!)

But if there is no evidence of a thing, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of that thing; other than personal preference which is in itself no indication of anything at all.


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.

Here is an example of your interchanging the two terms I mentioned above. Hans knows full well that the lack of any nearby medieval artifacts proves absolutely nothing. Yet here you make the claim that he is trying to "prove" a thing by this means, a method I don't see in his posts.


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.

Look, I know little or nothing of the Newport Tower, so I am not prepared to weigh in on the veracity of any claims regarding it.

I am, however, well aware of the History Channel's propensity for woo. They simply are not to be take seriously.

The Epigraphic Society, on the other hand, deserves a certain amount of respect. They did, after all, oust their founder from their midst, the misinformed marine biologist and egomanic Barry Fell.

Harte



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Howdy Harte



The Epigraphic Society, on the other hand, deserves a certain amount of respect. They did, after all, oust their founder from their midst, the misinformed marine biologist and egomanic Barry Fell.


Yes let me add my praise to them too. Barry is a good example of someone going outside their area of knowledge and going a bit...'odd'.

Oh and one added note, the two 'possible' posts around the tower found in the last excavation. D'uh I wasn't thinking. Multiple storied stone building - whatja need to build it?

Perhaps a secret invention of the very clever Norse / Templar / Chinese / Portuguese / Welsh called wooden scaffolding.

[edit on 2/10/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Sorry, I seemed to have stumbled into archeological forum that mistakenly named itself AboveTopSecret giving the impression that it’s serviced by conspiracy theorists. My first glimpse of your signature quotes, like “When one finds a big pot of fringe bubbling away over the fire of unrefined conjecture it's best not to stir to deep or to hard,” should have alerted me. I thought it was in reference to a method of digging for artifacts. It’s confusing though because none of you dug what I had to say even a little.

Can you tell me if the rest of this site is like this thread, overrun with intellectuals, who since they can’t mock the notion of using speculative investigation prior to focusing resources towards reaching valid conclusions, ignore it using silence to kill any messengers who might want to contribute something to the topic being discussed.

My experience in the field of speculative investigation of history has taught me that the newly burgeoning conspiracy theory industry reached its pinnacle of popularity through fictional interpretation of reality, which is a valuable tool for filling in the gaps of human behavior that can then lend to growing interest and opportunities in related fields of study. But you guys seem to be putting the cart before the horse with your lengthy debates about minute details that obviously are not ready to leave the lab yet because they cannot be agreed upon.

If you clog up the arteries of creative thinking in Templar related mysteries with the failures of science to come up with answers to them, you will miss out on reading what might be written here by someone who has no business in your complex library of minutia but who may rather came here to reveal their bigger than life thoughts on things they don’t have the first clue how complicated proving it to be true or false is. You see you offer nothing when you come here to talk about something that is non conclusive if you study these mysteries from a scientific perspective. If you came here to read the works of those less conformed to your rules of study, you may run into an awkward seemingly meaningless comment that will inspire you to go back to your lab and come up with something useful.

The question is if I go elsewhere in this site looking for an ear and lip service to my comments, will I find the same problem, a bunch of academics with half baked theories intent on blocking real world conspiracy theory discussions?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by clandestiny
Sorry, I seemed to have stumbled into archeological forum that mistakenly named itself AboveTopSecret giving the impression that it’s serviced by conspiracy theorists. My first glimpse of your signature quotes, like “When one finds a big pot of fringe bubbling away over the fire of unrefined conjecture it's best not to stir to deep or to hard,” should have alerted me. I thought it was in reference to a method of digging for artifacts. It’s confusing though because none of you dug what I had to say even a little.

So, you're mad cause nobody fainted at the astounding depth of your perceptive mind vis a vis the Templars?
LOL

Sorry to disappoint you, but ATS has never been a bobble . site, not as long as I've known it anyway. There are areas here, I'm sure, where you won't find a dissenting voice among the loons. But this section has (thankfully) never been thus, though sometimes it has approached something similar to that.

Apparently, you need reassurance that what you think matters. I suppose it does.

But look, I only chimed in to make a statement about that old pot . Carl Sagan. I already said I know next to nothing about this tower, and I really couldn't care less about the Templars, other than the fact that I pity them for the way they were betrayed.


Originally posted by clandestiny
Can you tell me if the rest of this site is like this thread, overrun with intellectuals, who since they can’t mock the notion of using speculative investigation prior to focusing resources towards reaching valid conclusions,

What? You haven't read much here, have you? "Speculative investigation" is constantly mocked around here, and rightly so.


Originally posted by clandestiny ignore it using silence to kill any messengers who might want to contribute something to the topic being discussed.

Do you always go into a snit when nobody has remarked upon what a clever fellow you are?


Originally posted by clandestinyThe question is if I go elsewhere in this site looking for an ear and lip service to my comments, will I find the same problem, a bunch of academics with half baked theories intent on blocking real world conspiracy theory discussions?

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance," and it used to be posted in the upper left corner (IIRC) of every page. It sounds like you would prefer to wax poetic about the Templars and damn the details. To some of us, without the details, you are just rambling on with some fictional tale.

At any rate, the only discussion possible if you exclude skeptics is simple agreement. That's the "bobble ." type thing I referred to above. My opinion is that if it's worth saying, it's worth supporting with evidence. If there is evidence, then said evidence is subject to interpretation. If there is no evidence, then what the heck are we talking about here?

At ATS, you can find claims of everything from tooth fairies to "Truther" fairies. But if you come into the ancient and lost civilizations area, you will run into folks that have spent a lot of their lives looking into ancient and lost civilizations. That's just part of it. People that dig at archaeological sites for a living, making less than bus drivers, sometimes get a little testy when they read somebody's post claiming they have been "hiding the truth" froim the public so they wouldn't lose their "cushy" jobs.

Understandable, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, this is the wrong area for you if you eschew discussion in favor of vigorous nods of agreement.
That said, welcome to the forum.


Harte



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I am not sure I understand what you just wrote. Are you saying that you,,, I don't think I can convince you to make sense of what you are trying to say.

You seem to think you and the other people in this section of ATS are,, what,, really really smart as compared to all the other people here, is that what you are saying. And you run around digging in dirt for little or no money.

OK, so how do you decide where to dig? You probably just go where there is already digging going on or start a new dig that you chose from a list of places that have been found that need to be excavated in some kind of timely fashion. I can understand that.

So you are so busy dealing with minutia to raise your .s into the clouds long enough to bobble for a while so to come up with ideas about where to dig on your own.

I am just trying to offer some insight into where to dig next. But then if you knew where to dig next, you wouldn't be talking about it. So you think I couldn't know where to dig or I am an idiot for wanting to talk about it if I do.

Anyway, I was just seeing if rattling your cage a little would get a response since you guys seem to get attention from each other that way. Academics are an odd species to me. I have very little formal education. I was in college at 16. But I found I could move a lot faster on my own.

As long as I have someones attention, I wonder if anyone can give their opinion on something. If the tower has windows that line up to point straight to the location of the Kensington Runestone, it can't be a coincidence. I don't know how accurate the claim is but if it is genuine, then it matters not what the age of the tower is as far as confirming that someone wanted that tower to serve as a monument to where the runestone is. Is that in agreement, or is that such a stupid question that it doesn't deserve answering.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that I don't want to be disagreed with. I want to be challenged. It's just I am above average when it comes to insulting people. So I am simply advising that you hold your tongue, as I will try to hold mine, and seek clarity before saying things you can't take back. What so often happens is that there is a big mouth in the crowd who attacks me jumping way too far a. of the conversation than the evidence warrants, which I understand because this story is as I said, unbelievable. So pressure is put on the rest of the forum to support that one outspoken voice. Then when I later bring better clarity to the topic, too much damage is already done to continue having a decent debate.

Quite frankly I like a good argument with all the bells and whistles. But with this topic, I just don't want anyone to walk away in the middle of it. If you have thick skin, take it anywhere you want. Just don't walk away before it is over. If someone sticks their foot in their mouth and I shove it down their throat, it's forgotten almost as quick as they can pull it back out or learn to live with it being there.

Just be advised that if you get into it with me, you will lose. You might win some battles but will lose the war, if you don't retreat.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Howdy Harte

Received an email from a gal I know who is more knowledgeable about New England Archaeology.

Besides laughting she did add a few points of why orthodoxy thinks the tower is just what the locals thought it was, a wind mill.

1. No privy was found, meaning it was't used by more than a very small amount of people. Just enough to run the mill.

2. Reconfirming something I noted. No sign of native american stone tools. Meaning it wasn't built in a time the NA were running around the area using stone tools, ie the colonial area when disease and war had greatly restricted their numbers AND changed their technology from stone to metal.

3. Unfortified. Norse experience and the experiences of later colonists showed that the NA could be down right hostile. Particularly after the colonists started being bad themselves. The Norse learned to fear the folk they collectively called the skrælingar, Innuits, Beothuks and other Indian tribes. The tower is unfortified (no wall or ditch) and itself is a death trap to a defender having no source of water and no defenses what-so-ever.

Correction to my previous postings. I used the term probable error, I meant instead standard deviation, my apologies.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I am not sure I agree that there would be no privy. The lack of a privy suggests it was built without industry or habitation in mind.

I would be willing to accept that it's a windmill frame without discounting that it had the duel purpose of serving as a monument to the locations of the runestone.

The question is do the windows actually line up with where the runestone was found. If they do, then they are connected. Does anyone know how accurate the claim is that there are two windows that point to the location of the hidden runestone. If that is an exaggerated claim, then the tower has nothing to do with the runestone. The windows have to point near perfectly to the runestone location or it would have been a futile effort to build it. here are carved landmarks in the area where the runestone was found that would allow for some error. But not a lot.

If it had anything to do with the Templars, and Templars became Freemasons, then the secret could have been passed down and the tower built later as a windmill while secretly housing the sights that told where the runestone was found.

If the windows line up, I see little other choice but to accept that it is part of an elaborate game no matter when it was built. If you can point out how this thinking is flawed, please do.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Han: Received an email from a gal I know who is more knowledgeable about New England Archaeology.

Besides laughting she did add a few points of why orthodoxy thinks the tower is just what the locals thought it was, a wind mill.


Well if it's such a consensus then there shouldn't be anyone in that field speaking out against the "orthodoxy". I guess we should trust "some gal you know" more than the scientists, chemists, and researchers who've contributed a counterpoint to the "orthodoxy".

Some Reservations about the Newport Tower C-14 Dates

This document raises serious question of the dating method.
Radiocarbon Dating of the Newport Tower

It's a short read, and should be read in it's entirety.

These are scientists who have reached conclusions the AMSc14 dating was flawed, as it was applied to the Newport Tower.


A. de Bethune - "On the Carbon-14 Analysis of Mortar from the Newport Tower: Theoretical Considerations," Journal of the Newport Historical Society, vol. 69, 1998.

His final conclusion: Tower already standing 1440-1480.


Alan Watchman, Data-Roche Watchman, Inc. in Quebec, Canada - detailed commentary on the Heinemeier and Jungner article in a private letter to James Whittall, 1996.

Watchman’s conclusion: Tower built around 1400.
Data-Roche Watchman does extensive carbon dating testing and contributes to Geoarchaeology.


Jim Guthrie - NEARA author and chemist, 2007. See citation above:

“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.”

He also states his belief that the samples were too few, compared to other uses of this dating method in S. Africa which used kilogram sized samples.


J. Huston McCulloch - "Some Reservations about the Newport Tower C-14 Dates", Midwestern Epigraphic Journal, Vol. 15, 2001 (source);

McCulloch's conclusion:

In the end HJ apparently use five dates - two dates on the questionable surface sample from the flue, the contradictory dates from the two preparations of sample 2 from pillar 7 (first fraction only), and the first fraction of sample 12, from pillar 6 - to date the Tower. These average to 222 BP ± 30, but they adjust this standard error upward by the above-mentioned 60% to obtain 48 years instead. The point estimate dendrocalibrates to 1665 AD, but also to approximately 1790, as well as 1940, by their Figure 2. The first branch of a 68% confidence interval (1 standard error) dendrocalibrates to 1651 - 1679 AD, while the first branch of a 95% confidence interval (2 standard errors) dendrocalibrates to 1635 AD - 1698 AD. Only the periods 1698 - 1720 and 1810 - 1920 lie outside the later branches of the 95% confidence interval.

Although HJ conclude from their results that the Newport Tower could not have been built before 1635, I regard this as inconclusive evidence against an earlier date for construction, for several reasons:

1. Two of the dates used were from a surface sample that may have represented a colonial or even later repair to an earlier structure.

2. The other samples used may have been biased by slow reaction and/or substitution from rainwater. The inappropriately excluded post-1945 date on one of the samples tested demonstrates that rainwater substitution is an important factor.

3. The Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House does nothing to demonstrate that the slow reaction and substitution biases are not a problem, because of the flatness of the dendrocalibration curve since 1665 AD on the one hand, and the fact that its sample was not exposed to the weather on the other hand.

4. The two Finnish churches do little to verify the Tower date, since the true dates of these churches are unknown, and since the samples were taken from the interior of the churches, where they were not exposed to the weather and potential carbonate substitution. Indeed, the fact that a few of the samples taken from them were still alkaline indicates that slow reaction may be a serious problem of mortar dating in general.

5. There are several inconsistencies in the results and unanswered questions that remain to be addressed.

To be sure, none of these considerations proves that the Newport Tower is any older than 1635. I am merely returning a provisional "Scotch verdict" of "not proven colonial."


Wolter, Scott, presentation to the NEARA, 2008. (source)


At a recent NEARA (New England Antiquities Research Association) conference held in Newport, RI (November 7-9, 2008), an announcement was made concerning the carbon-dating of mortar found during the Chronognostic Research Foundation's dig at the Newport Tower. Apparently a piece of shell (probably used to make the mortar) was found attached to the mortar. This sample was carbon-dated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the date of 1450 plus or minus 30 years was obtained. We are awaiting the full report and more details, but obviously this is the kind of "hard science" needed to establish that the Tower predates Columbus.


The man who conducted the research, Jørgen Siemonsen, is not a trained scientist. He's a Danish business man and chairman of the Danish sponsored Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America: AD 100 - 1500. What are his qualifications? So who is Jørgen Siemonsen? The History News Network calls him a "well known debunker of Viking frauds". He gives a series of lectures debunking myths of Vikings in America. Sounds like someone with an agenda. I could pull a Hanslune here and make an ad-hominem attack on the 1993 dating based on Siemonsen's lack of credentials or the fact he staked his career on disproving any Viking connections to it, but I prefer to evaluate evidence on it's own merit. The team who did the actual AMSc14 dating (HJ) were given samples to test. They were not part of the sample collection process (that was Siemonsen), and worked from what they were given. 30 samples were taken, 10 were tested, 7 rejected (reason?) and only 3 used to arrive at their conclusion the tower was built in 1680.

In other words, based on the research of those above, he took too few samples, took samples from the surface, or didn't understand the degree that contamination would affect even deep mortar. This speaks nothing of the fact the tower may have undergone extensive repairs, or rebuilds, during it's long history that would also introduce newer materials into an older structure.




Hans: >>>>From a excavation report "two possible wooden posts at the right distance from the columns to form an arcade (ambulatory)".



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
In "Holy Grail in America," it's claimed that two of the keystones out of the eight arches line up to point to the location of the buried Kensington Runestone. I mistakenly said it was two windows in previous posts before I went back and watched the video a second time. But I can't find anything that offers better details about what was meant by the commentary, which was not elaborated on and is key to a connection between the tower and runestone. So it may have been known to be somewhat of an embellishment by the producers where it might have pointed in the general direction of the runestone; or perhaps it is excitedly accurate and they didn't want to give away too much information.

There is a lot of ground between Rhode Island and Minnesota so it would have had to be very accurate to serve as a directional landmark for the runestone. The tower was covered with plaster at some point. That also has to be taken into consideration when assessing whether it was indeed part of the runestone puzzle. I cannot not find anything with my limited access to the internet to confirm or deny that the keystones point to the runestone.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
A really good article on the tower
www.neara.org...
And yet another on the last excavation
www.chronognostic.org...
www.chronognostic.org...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 3-10-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
You have all got to try this. I don't know how accurate it is but it is fun. Go to google and search Kensington Runestone, then enter the wikipedia link for it. Then go down and click "Solem" where the stone was found. Take a good look at the map showing where Solem is. It's right near the straight border where it arches out, then back to a straight line so it is easy to find.

Then go to

maps.google.com...

Then click on "-more info" next to the second choice for Newport Tower. Then click on the map to the right.

Now zoom out until you can see that hook on the border of Minnesota. Zoom back in as far as you can where you can still see both places. Then put a piece of tape, light sticking see through if you have it. Or tape any kind of straight edge between the two places.

Now switch to satellite mode (top of map) and carefully zoom all the way in on the tower.

From this perspective, it does appear the the keystone in the arches line up to point to where the runestone was found.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   


Well if it's such a consensus then there shouldn't be anyone in that field speaking out against the "orthodoxy".


Hans: ‘orthodoxy’ is general description of what you might call the opinion of archaeologists who do work in that area. Which of the sources you quote are members of this group?




I guess we should trust "some gal you know"


Hans: Nope just general information added to the pot on the Tower, observations from an expert.



more than the scientists, chemists, and researchers who've contributed a counterpoint to the "orthodoxy".


Hans: No, those were just observations, not comments from a peer reviewed paper. There comments are also not in peer review publications




A. de Bethune


Hans: I don’t know A. De Bethune, would you care to give us an idea of who he is and his experience with this type of work. Did he publish in a peer review publication?



Alan Watchman


Hans: So if he has such strong evidence why not publish it? Can you point to his publication in Geoarchaeology on this subject? What are his qualifications?



Jim Guthrie


Hans: Same comments as above – the advantage of AMS is that you can use small samples – kilogram size samples are not possible from the tower.




J. Huston McCulloch, Wolter, Scott


Hans: Same comments as above once we know their qualification we can go to looking at the entire documents they wrote and the context of the parts you quote.

So if these fine Gentleman are true scientists and have evidence to dismiss bad science why don’t they publish it?




The man who conducted the research, Jørgen Siemonsen, is not a trained scientist.


Hans???
From the Neara report – this is one of your own sources

www.neara.org...

Quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 1995 a Danish research team published a paper detailing their work on radiocarbon dating of the mortar in the Newport Tower (Heinemeier and Junger). This work was part of a larger effort to establish mortar dates on structures in Europe. The team was already experi-enced in mortar dating and all the intricacies of sample collection, storage, shipment, etc. They appear to have been both meticulous and thorough in their work, and here is what got done:

1. At various locations on the Tower they drilled 10 different holes, taking samples from different depths in the mortar.
2. They crushed and sieved the samples, keeping only the grains that were .0005 inch and smaller.
3. The samples were shipped to the Uni¬versity of Helsinki where they were prepared for AMS carbon dating. They were submerged in phosphoric acid in a vacuum. For each sample, the CO2 that boiled out in the first few minutes was collected and kept separate from the CO2 that came out for the remainder of the chemical reaction that continued.
4. The CO2 fractions were then sent to the University of Aarhus in Denmark where Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was performed.



They were not part of the sample collection process (that was Siemonsen), and worked from what they were given. 30 samples were taken, 10 were tested, 7 rejected (reason?) and only 3 used to arrive at their conclusion the tower was built in 1680.


Hans: The quote from your own source doesn't seem to agree with you.
I would suggest you read the link above it explains in detail how the samples were taken and shows on a graph which ones were kept and which ones were rejected-and the reason why



In other words, based on the research of those above, he took too few samples, took samples from the surface, or didn't understand the degree that contamination would affect even deep mortar.


Hans: If you would read the above you would find that the surface samples were rejected. Most of the one rejected either lacked enough material or were too modern



This speaks nothing of the fact the tower may have undergone extensive repairs, or rebuilds, during it's long history that would also introduce newer materials into an older structure.


Hans: Then if there were extensive repairs the comparative studies to older European structures are also invalid for the same reason. However the operative word is ‘may’.




The ambulatory was suspected to be a part of the design of the tower, as Wolter presented. CRF then went looking for the evidence of the ambulatory and found it,


Hans: Actually there own report states clearly that they didn’t find it, they found two ‘possible’ poles and in a third hole found nothing. Not quite enough to establish a structure. Its also been what, two years, so where is the rest of excavation?



two post remnants right where they would need to be to support the ambulatory.


Hans: If they are poles they could support anything else too, like the building scaffold. What was the diameter of the ‘possible’ poles?




CRF did not randomly start digging, they were looking for evidence of this structure and found it.


Hans: No they didn’t you need to carefully consider the word “possible” and the lack of a possible pole in their third excavation. I notice also that you are now accepting archaeological evidence while previously you rejected it. Again you'll need to take a firm stand, either archaeological evidence is used or not used. You cannot cherry pick.




Your statement is confusing Hans. If there are no signs of Native American stone tools then they were never there in any numbers.


Hans: No, they didn’t leave any which would have been the case if they’d had friendly or unfriendly relations with people at the tower. Or in the colonial area they would have had no stone tools having switched to metal




Again, your statement appears to confuse the issue, and you're also generalizing. There was also friendly relations between the early settlers and NA.



Hans: I seem to recall warfare and fortification




The Vikings did have friendly contact with the M'ikmaq.


Hans: Evidence for this? I find it interesting that you write that like its a known fact. It isn't




They have a legend referring to them. Pritchard also notes the likelihood of their co-habitating with them during their forays into the Americas.


Hans: Speculation is not evidence just speculation, evidence on which Pritchard based these claims?




You're applying the consensus they were always hostile.


Hans: So is the case the history of colonization is one of warfare - and the spread of massive death amongst NA when coming into contact with Europeans - any mention of that? What happened to the European unintentional bio war?




And we can't rule out any type of fortification, which most likely consisted of wooden palisades long gone, even the postal remnants noted by CRF were scarcely detectable.


Hans: Lines of heavy posts or that type of ground work leaves noticeable traces in the ground. I’m starting to suspect that the CRF found tree roots.




The KSR and rune stones found in NE are gaining new found acceptance as authentic (the whole point of this thread).


Hans: No there not, that is simply a fringe wish, nor does it have any effect on our discussion




Unless you care to refute Wolter's scientific analysis.


Hans: I’m unaware that he published a paper along with his commercial book. Could you please link to said paper please?




In fact, if you want to debunk Wolter then present one peer-reviewed paper (with links please) that refutes his finding.


Hans: As noted above where is the paper he wrote that one needs to debunk? Publicly released unscientific material doesn’t require a paper to debunk.




Or do you want to claim the rune stones must be forgeries because the Norse explorers didn't build fortifications in the area around them?


Hans: AFAIK these rune stones have not been found to be real- has something changed? Your going from the point that the runes are real, they aren’t accepted.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I think I have answered my own question of wanting a convincing argument that the keystones and the alignment of the tower point in the direction of the runestone burial site. It remains to be seen whether it points directly to it. I believe the argument that it might is strengthened by the fact that the tower columns don’t line up east west/ north south , or northeast/southwest either. It rather lines up pointing towards the Kensington runestone burial site.

It seems to me based on your continued consuming arguments that may never yield a clear answer as to the age of the tower that it may make better sense to focus on whether the keystones do point directly to the hidden runestone. If they do, it opens the door to the reason for it being that way as having something to do with Templar’s and Freemasons. Since Freemasons founded this country, like Benedict Arnold, even thought he was a traitor, which then some account of the Revolutionary War being staged by Freemasons on both sides of the war.

The point is that whether there is or isn’t a Templar treasure, if evidence can be shown that someone, no matter who or when, went to a lot of trouble to give the impression that there is, whatever game they are playing has still yet to be uncovered, perhaps because it hasn’t runs its course yet. If this is so, then there are records that answer the question of who built the tower, why, and when. They are just purposely being kept from public view.

In order for there to be a conspiracy of the magnitude that many believe to be real, any academic institutions that could undermine it would have to be controlled in such a way as to not disturb the game board before it is primed to fulfill its intended use. When I look at the arrogance that permeates this thread by,, I can’t come up with a better description for the way you guys debate carbon dating mortar,, bobble .s and loons, it is apparent that institutional brainwashing is used to keep academics from thinking outside of their compartmentalized specialties. I have found this same problem when discussing climate and earthquake science with so called experts. They, or you, have been trained, or are being trained, in this thing you call science where you focus only on peer reviewed facts while looking at anyone outside of your field as idiots and morons if they inject a little common sense into the debate about how things in this world really work.

I tell the same thing to the other experts I debate on other issues as I will tell you. If the people who run the world weren’t screwing everything, then there wouldn’t be so many people questioning your methods. It’s the same with energy, climate, health, the economy, if academics who have locked themselves in their schooled of thought with all the answers while locking the rest of us out as too ignorant to understand them, weren’t making such a mess of everything they touch, such as if you could answer all these difficult question you pose about the Newport Tower, then we would all simply sit back and be astounded by your discoveries.

They way you act in this forum reminds me of my younger days. I was a young, good looking, aggressive, and charming young man. Whenever I encountered a new group of people I hadn’t grown up with or one that was outside my social genre, I experience a kind of immediate rejection by males who would be my social equals in the group if I was one of them. They however didn’t so much shun my advances towards them for friendship but towards females of their group. There was many ways that this took place. Lumping it all into one phrase eventually became known as cock blocking. It happens when a group of men (experts) have designated themselves as the perfect mates for a class of women (field of expertise) and so take it upon themselves to stop all other males deemed as unworthy of their women from being found attractive by their women.

Thanks for making me feel young again, you have lifted my spirits greatly.

-Bobby



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by clandestiny
 


I love this thread! Here we have a spirited debate going on about the merits of science versus speculative thinking with regard to the Kensington Runestone...and suddenly the discussion shifts to 'cock blocking'.

Clandestiny, you may prefer the bigger picture, but that picture is wishful thinking unless supported by the minutiae which you hold in such disdain. That is how to build a knowledge base which is not grounded on poo.

By all means, utilise this soap box for your pet theory, but don't get all huffy when asked for proof. Just because you can see the North Star when you look up my chimney, I don't expect to be able to call my house the Centre of the Universe, and not get some challenge...even if the Old Ones tell me I'm right.




[edit on 4-10-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join