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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
Originally posted by clandestiny ignore it using silence to kill any messengers who might want to contribute something to the topic being discussed.
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?
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.
“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.”
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."
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.
Hans: >>>>From a excavation report "two possible wooden posts at the right distance from the columns to form an arcade (ambulatory)".
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".
A. de Bethune
Alan Watchman
Jim Guthrie
J. Huston McCulloch, Wolter, Scott
The man who conducted the research, Jørgen Siemonsen, is not a trained scientist.
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.
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,
two post remnants right where they would need to be to support the ambulatory.
CRF did not randomly start digging, they were looking for evidence of this structure and found it.
Your statement is confusing Hans. If there are no signs of Native American stone tools then they were never there in any numbers.
Again, your statement appears to confuse the issue, and you're also generalizing. There was also friendly relations between the early settlers and NA.
The Vikings did have friendly contact with the M'ikmaq.
They have a legend referring to them. Pritchard also notes the likelihood of their co-habitating with them during their forays into the Americas.
You're applying the consensus they were always hostile.
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.
The KSR and rune stones found in NE are gaining new found acceptance as authentic (the whole point of this thread).
Unless you care to refute Wolter's scientific analysis.
In fact, if you want to debunk Wolter then present one peer-reviewed paper (with links please) that refutes his finding.
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?