This 1939 aerial photograph of Touro Park shows the clearly visible, round nave of the Newport Tower, and what appears to be the rectangular shape of a chancel running east-west on the east side. More info about this photos can be found at the following link: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Phippsburg-History-Center-114338978642314/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1600659460010251
Researcher Patrick Shekleton, noticed what appears to be a rectangular imprint in the grass on the east side of the Newport Tower.
This schematic of the Temple Church, in London, England, shows the round nave and rectangular chancel facing east that is eerily similar to what appears in the 1939 aerial photograph.
In a Gothic cathedral, such as this schematic of Reims Cathedral in France, the nave of the church is rectangular in shape and faces to the west.
This schematic of Cambridge Round Church in Cambridge, England, show an identical layout the Newport Tower likely had when first constructed in the early 1400's, minus the north and south aisles. Image can be found at the following link: http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian/art/architecture/salvin/1d.jpg
Cambridge Round Church was built by the Knights Templar, circa 1130, and exhibits the exact same design and architecture as the Newport Tower. Several factual pieces of evidence are consistent with the Newport Tower having a one-story ambulatory like the ones at both Cambridge and Temple Churches in England, in addition to several others such as the Charola in the round nave in the Templar church in Tomar, Portugal.
Inside the church at the Convent of Christ Castle in Tomor, Portugal, is the beautifully illuminated, two-story octagonal tower that sits on eight heavy columns called the Charola. It was built by the Knights Templar in 1161, and its design also mirrors the Newport Tower.
The areas in red were built by the Templars in the 1160's and include the two-story octagonal Charola that served as an architectural archetype for the Newport Tower in Newport, Rhode Island.
All eight stone columns in the Newport Tower have a slate slabs at the base, and at the top that serves a structural function as a capstone ledge to support the wooden trusses of the roof for the first-story ambulatory.
Clear evidence of what was a wooden, first-story ambulatory can seen with the capstone ledges atop all eight columns, at approximately eight feet above grade (yellow arrows), and the where the roof met the exterior tower wall roughly four feet above the ledges (red arrows).
This test pit was dug during the salvage archaeological dig at the Newport Tower, reportedly in the area of the rectangular shape seen in the 1939 aerial photo. Could the layer of stones, which do not appear to be a natural glacial geological feature, be remnants of the foundation for the rectangular structure?
Recently, friend and fellow researcher, Patrick Shekleton, forwarded a 1939 aerial photograph of Touro Park and wrote that he noticed what looked like a rectangular shape image running east-west on the east side. I didn't have to look too hard and sure enough, there did appear to be a rectangular shape in the grass apparently reflecting the imprint of the footings of structure that was once attached to the round tower. Pat and I discussed the image and the his posting of the discovery on the Phippsburg, website. While it is certainly possible the rectangle could be from a structure built long after the Tower was constructed, its close proximity suggests it's connected.
The image of the test pit dug during the salvage archaeological dig conducted by Chronognostic Research Foundation shows a soil horizon profile within excavation unit located to the east of the tower. The man-made glacial stone layer was identified as a portion of a potential structure foundation: "Under these dumped layers is a layer of native stones. The stones tell us that there may have been a structure east of the tower. This is important because our research has shown that there were no structures around the Tower since the town's founding in 1639. (http://www.chronognostic.org/over_touro_park.html)
Not to be a stick in the mud, but if you look closely you can see numerous similar lines on the photo always going exactly horizontally across the face of the photo. This is indicative of a scratched negative. Film is very delicate and easily scratched when spooling through a camera or subsequently a viewer or an enlarger.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the lines are there, but with the obvious marring of the negative it's hard to say with any certainty. Especially considering these lines also go exactly horizontally.
Anonymous,
DeleteI don't see any evidence of scratching; looks more like a dirty stick to me...
Scott, I looked at aerial photos of the area from 1938, 1941, 1970, and 1990 and crafted slides for all but the 1941 picture (got sidetracked, but I will construct a slide as well). The aerial photographs are all publicly available; the 1939 from Rhode Island GIS and the remaining from USGS Earth Explorer. Everyone can do their own analysis on the images. The fact that the feature on the east side of the structure presents clearly in the 1970 aerial photos means the outline is not a scratch on the negative/hardcopy print, so if anyone suggests that, it means that they have not done their own due diligence. We also screened the images for the roller tracks that may be caused by the film feeding through the camera, the negative strips being processed, and/or the photographic prints being developed. I have shared the other year slides already on Facebook. I will email them to you if you wish to share them here, although there isn't a reason to clog up your blog post answering questions of folks who are too lazy to go do their own analysis.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,you are quite right in pointing out that there are, potentially, quite a few defects on photographic images. Scratches are always seen, typically caused by the mechanical processing that I described. Human-induced scratches can show up as well, usually irregular lines that corkscrew on the surface. Then there is the human fingerprint effect by handling the negatives when still wet...marred an entire sequence of 1940 aerials taking of the Phippsburg, ME area. Another issue arises when digitally scanning the hardcopy prints that have aged. It is interesting to note that despite their lower resolution, the pre-1960 aerial photos seem to have less of the surface texture defects...the chicken pox effect is what I term it. There must have been a change in the type of negative film or chemical processing that induces that noise onto the print. I'm sticking with my conclusions, but you are quite correct in pointing out that there are a variety of defects that can be interpreted incorrectly.
ReplyDeletePatrick: Are the photos Scott is showing the negative images ? Isn't that a tree ? Doubtful you can see lines on the the ground through the canopy of a tree !
ReplyDeleteYou can easily see trees in the photo; there is no tree in that area then or now.
DeleteExcellent investigation Scott. As usual. :)
ReplyDeleteNo trees in the area immediately to the east of the tower. Trees show up, dependent on image color, positive/negative reversals, contrast and brightness levels, as "blossom-like" features. Generally their canopies/branch arrangement is fairly circular, but can present slightly differently. Most of the time by adjusting brightness/contrast you can actually find the main trunk of the tree. Your point that "establishing" valid structure outlines through a full leaf canopy being difficult is true. It is less difficult with the leaves being shed. In the case of Touro Park, relative to the aerial photos, there are no trees on the east side of the tower out to the sidewalk. Patrick
ReplyDeletePatrick,
ReplyDeleteDon’t you think the 2003-2006 GPR study by the Chronognostic Research Foundation Inc., would provide a better representstion of subsurface features, rather than a grainy aerial image from the 1930s?
Regards,
D
D, Good to hear from you, again. Pull up the 2018 Google Earth photo of the Newport Tower. In fact, everyone should. The outline is right there. Patrick
ReplyDeletePatrick
ReplyDeleteI am not all that familiar with the Newport tower, perhaps you could tell me what direction from the tower the fellow sitting in the shadows under the shade of a tree is ? (to the right of the tower in the photo)
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S-454UYcsA4/WibF_dcwc-I/AAAAAAABOGU/NbiwGLargLYpqmUcx21lBeWpHB1You9FQCLcBGAs/s1600/Elizabethan-America-the%2BJohn-Dee-Tower-of-1583-Newport-Rhode-Island-by-James-Egan-Newport-Tower-20.jpg
That is why search engines and easy to use software applications were developed for Internet savvy folks like yourself. Good hunting!
DeletePatrick,
ReplyDeleteI’ll revise my question. Don’t you think the GPR study would provide a more comprehensive representation of subsurface features than google earth satellite imagery?
Regards,
D
D,
ReplyDeleteAerial photographic analysis and GPR are both remote sensing tools. Both methods have produced positive results for identifying subsurface features, operating within the inherent limitations of each method. At the end of the day, regardless of which tool is used (not excluding other tools), ground truth is required.
Patrick,
DeleteYou are correct about limitations of each method. However, ground truthing has been conducted on multiple occasions at Touro Park and not one artifact dating to the period you and Scott are suggesting has ever been identified. You can’t ignore the material culture evidence in favour of subjective lines in the grass.
I’m all for speculation and investigation. IF those are actually subsurface features, they could very well provide further information on the history of the park and/or tower. But to suggest they are the remains of a church attributed to the Templars when all the other material culture evidence suggests otherwise is a bit misleading I think.
Regards,
D
D,
DeleteNumerous digs by treasure hunters within the footprint of the tower has rendered the fill within it useless as far as being reliable archaeologically. Further, there have been no professional digs beyond the fence encircling the tower. Therefore, your argument about a lack of Precolonial 'material culture evidence' is irrelevant as there has been no archaeological excavation in the undisturbed areas.
In fact, the one salvage dig that was conducted in these areas in 2008 yielded important evidence supporting a precolonial origin. Stay tuned.
D,
DeleteYou are correct that no artifacts dating to the period that Scott and I (and many others, as well) have been uncovered below the surface of the ground. For now we'll ignore the million pounds of estimated material (per Suzanne Carlson)of the NT itself...so we can all torment each other some more!
With respect to the cultural material that Godfrey excavated, the contention has always been (Mallery et al and Pohl specifically) that those items were introduced into the "construction trench" and underneath the pier stones after the original structure was constructed. This contention is because all of the dateable artifacts were all found brown loam soil horizons that were infused with mortar fragments. Godfrey's conclusion differed, obviously. He concluded that the "construction trench" was part of the original construct. Unfortunately - and not well noticed by folks - is that the 1995 report by Johannes Hertz, the co-director of the Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America AD 1000-1500 deemed Godfrey's "construction trench" premise to be incorrect. In other words, the Committee explicitly undermined Godfrey's premise and, thus, his conclusions as to the provenance of the datable artifacts. The artifacts were all sitting in re-filled material. Hertz's English-translated 1997 report is available ($$) at the Newport Historical Society.
Until it has been established as to what the outlines on the west, and east, side of the tower represent, there will be various factions asserting that the NT represents X, Y, and Z.
The outlines are an opportunity for further investigation - all the way down to an excavation. Godfrey's 1948/1949 excavation permanently removed any investigation within the perimeter fence. The outline areas have not yet been compromised by treasure hunters, antiquarians, and potholers.
I purchased Godfrey's thesis, the various JSTOR articles, and the various articles at the NHS. I read the primary source material. It is quite interesting information.
Patrick,
DeleteWould you not expect mortar to be within a construction trench? How do you refill a foundation cut, if not with refilled material?
Alas, no torment intended. But that’s exactly the point, “...millions of pounds of estimated material...of the NT itself...”. That’s a lot of material, it would have taken time to construct something like that. The NT and Touro Park don’t exist in isolation or in a vacuum. They are part of the surrounding landscape. If, as you and Scott claim, that it is the remains of a medieval-era church, where is the community that built it? They would have required craftsmen, tools, housing, agriculture, building supplies, etc. Have there been any medieval or Templar related archaeological sites identified in Newport? If not....why not? Surely there would be artifacts and features left from such a community, they would be recognizable in the archaeological record. Recently there was a spring and cistern unearthed in Newport, what was found there?
I’m not at all trying to quash further investigation into historical sites, or saying that there is nothing left to learn from further investigation. I’m just saying the medieval-era Templar church hypothesis is highly unlikely, given the current historical and archaeological records. To claim that there is “...no longer any doubt the Newport Tower was constructed by the Knights Templar around the year 1400...” is just simply not true.
Regards,
D
D,
DeleteCan you answer a couple of simple questions? First, do you agree the architecture of the remaining structure in Newport is consistent with known medieval Templar round church architecture like the examples shown above? Yes or no.
"There is only one point where the author of this article finds it difficult to accept Godfrey’s interpretation of the find-context. This concerns the pieces of mortar found spread out in the undisturbed fill of the ring-ditch, which helped the excavators to distinguish this fill from the surrounding clay. Godfrey’s explanation for those lumps of mortar is that masonry-work must have been begun on one or more pillars while parts of the ring-ditch were still open.{39} Even if this had been the case, the mortar would hardly have been spread over such large areas of the ditch. Neither does this explain the appearance of nails and pieces of glass in the ditch fill or in the original soil-layer. Those finds, together with the lumps of mortar, more probably suggest an earlier activity on the site, during which building debris was spread around the area.” [3] (CAPITALIZATION and underline are present author’s emphasis)
Delete3. Ibid, page 74.
-Hertz, Johannes (1997) "Round Church or Windmill? New light on the Newport Tower," Newport History: Vol. 68 : Iss. 235, Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/newporthistory/vol68/iss235/2
Patrick
D,
DeleteThe community aspect question that you raise is completely valid. The Spring Street spring excavation, as I understand it, is not complete and no formal report has been presented. There would have been a cadre of persons involved. Where did they reside? Was their habitation permanent, or seasonal? Did they remain birthed on ships, or did they invest time to build structures in Newport? There certainly would potentially have been shoreline activities. If these were immediately adjacent down in Newport Harbor, they have long been covered up. The 1639 colonists encountered low lying, water saturated, overgrown with impenetrable vines and thickets. They had the Native Americans fire the land and then backfill/raise the land, which is all along the shore, Thames Street to the water's edge. The spring needn't be the exclusive, if it was even used, water source. There are wells that produce water one block north of the tower. Patrick
There is no confusion that Hertz’s 1995 report, presumably a product peer-reviewed by the multi-national team that comprised the Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America AD 1000-1500 [4] of which Hertz was the co-director, disputed Godfrey’s primary conclusion.
DeleteGodfrey was very clear as to how he judged the brown loam soil with mortar/plaster fragments, writing in his thesis:
“On the positive side of the ledger, the 1948 excavations yielded some definite and useful information, which gave us essential clues for the proposed quest of the following year. We discovered how the Tower had been built. This material will be presented below (Chapter IX) in detail, so it is not necessary here to more than summarize it. Before the Tower was built, a construction or foundation trench was dug. Into this trench were tumbled the foundation stones, which were not mortared together. This trench had to be filled to hold these stones in place before the structure above ground could be built. It is obvious, then, that anything found in the refill of this construction trench would have to be contemporary with the building of the Tower. Here, then, is where we would find the answer.” [5] (CAPITALIZATION and underline are present author’s emphasis)
Godfrey’s answer came in the form of the Colonial era artifacts, which were found in various sections of the structure, but all within the brown loam layer infused from top to bottom with mortar/plaster fragments.
This is the layer that Hertz and his team reclassified in their 1995 report as – in laymen’s terms – RE-FILL from an excavation AFTER the original construction and EARLIER (prior to) Godfrey’s excavation. In parallel fashion, Hertz et al just informed us that the Colonial era artifacts found in the 1948/49 excavation doesn’t support a Colonial era construct of the Newport Tower but, rather, a Colonial era modification to the structure.
4. Goudsward, page 69, 2006. Google Books book review contains a detailed synopsis of the Committee’s effort.
5. Godfrey, page 100, 1951. $264 to the Harvard University Library Archives; not available online.
-Godfrey, William S., Jr. “Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost: The Archaeology and Controversial History of the Newport Tower”. PhD diss., Harvard University, 1951.
-Goudsward, David. Ancient stone sites of New England and the debate over early European exploration. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2006.
So much for the long-touted academic consensus on the cultural artifacts that were postulated for the NT being a Colonial Era original construction. Godfrey's premise was faulty.
Patrick
Patrick,
DeleteHas one medieval artifact ever been recovered from any of the excavations at Touro Park?
D
D,
DeleteSurely you know that a lack of evidence is proof of nothing. Archaeologists seem to think the only way to prove something is by pulling something out of the ground. That would be great in this case, and it still might happen, but it isn't necessary to prove the case.
Scott,
DeletePulling contextual evidence out of the ground is usually a pretty good way to prove something when there are no historical records to draw from...
Scott and Patrick, there’s something I don’t quite understand, and I’ve been trying to piece together your theory:
Venus worshipping Knights Templar, escaping persecution in Europe, came to North America in the 1100s. Within a generation or two they fully integrated with First Nations people, went to the middle of the country and left a stone land claim in the 1300s. They left no evidence of their presence because again, they were now First Nations and would have not had Norse, Templar, or European material culture to leave behind. After being in North America for hundreds of years (300-400 from your theory) and no longer being Templars, they decided to build a Templar church in the 1400s broadcasting their existence and location to the people they were supposedly hiding from?
D
D,
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree having legitimate archaeological evidence to support the case would be great. However, it is not the only evidence that can prove the case. As I've said many times, because of rapid assimilation the odds of finding unquestionable European artifacts in a predominantly Native American site are pretty darn small.
The other problem, as demonstrated by the Smithsonian Institution's handling of the Bat Creek Stone, the blanket denials and obfuscation that has gone on for two centuries now doesn't give us so-called "fringe" historians reason to trust that any mainstream archaeologists will step out of line. It's a huge problem that I don't see being resolved anytime soon.
With regard to the Templar's, they made frequent trips for over two centuries and started bringing initiated knights here after 1307, who decided to stay up until about 1400. The task of establishing the "New Jerusalem" as it is still called in certain circles, was handed off to their ideological brethren in Freemasonry.
No one can deny that both the medieval Templars and our Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to the monarchs in Europe and the Roman Catholic Church after 1307. To not see the obvious connections and similar motives is simply not realistic.
Surely you must see the connective tissue?
Scott,
DeleteSo you want archaeological evidence but don’t trust any archaeologists because of the Smithsonian (who are withholding some sort of truth). The thousands of expert archaeologists working everyday in North America can’t be trusted to identify a non-native, pre-colonial artifact or site? Why? All because you think they won’t step outside of their current understanding of history? Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think you have a grasp at all of how archaeology works. As a geologist I would think you would understand the scientific method and how extraordinary claims would require evidence subject to continuous testing and analysis.
Now the Templars.......so the Templars rapidly assimilated with First Nations but also made frequent trips back and forth to Europe for over 200 years? That doesn’t seem like being completely assimilated to me. 200+ years of going back and forth is a lot of voyages. Where were these ships provisioned? Where did all the cargo go when they got here? Or did the ships not need supplies and the people not need clothing, food, or tools? The Templars then brought initiated knights over in 1307, carved the KRS, built the NT in 1400 and decided to leave(all while being completely assimilated into First Nations culture)?
Then their idea to establish a “New Jerusalem” was handed off to the Freemasons, who saw the monarchs of Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands take over North America.
D
"Has one medieval artifact ever been recovered from any of the excavations at Touro Park?"
DeleteNO.
Have there been any seventeenth century artifacts found in pristine, uncontaminated with mortar fragments, brown loam soil? NO
The mortar infused brown loam soil above the yellow clay material at the bottom of the trench is what comprised Godfrey's "construction ditch." The Norse Committee rejected Godfrey's hypothesis that this "construction ditch" was an original feature at the time the structure was constructed.
Mallery and the two engineers from the City of Newport in their mid-1950s excavation to inspect the foundation piers found that the stones comprising these piers had their joints/spaces caulked with mortar-infused yellow clay, so by extension and coupled with Hertz's rational, these piers thus become a "post de facto" addition to the structure. This is what Mallery et al/Pohl/Carlson all argued.
Hertz's 1995/1997 report was a huge blunder. Of course the report was peer-reviewed, that committee consisted of academics from a wide-range of disciplines, including archeologists. Hertz's report summarized the findings of the committee - and they eviscerated Godfrey's premise, findings, and conclusions. That's the end of the story for any conclusion that attempts to affirm a 17th century construct of the NT. What was found were 17th century artifacts in a "construction ditch" dug in the 17th century to add the foundation piers under the pillars (just what Mallery et al postulated).
No word-smithing on my part, no shaving corners. The peer-reviewed 1995/1997 report, written by the co-director of the committee, stripped away the provenance of the 17th century artifacts being connected to the original construct of the tower.
Scott,
Delete"No one can deny that both the medieval Templars and our Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to the monarchs in Europe and the Roman Catholic Church after 1307. To not see the obvious connections and similar motives is simply not realistic."
I thought that during the American Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers were allied with the French, the very country that destroyed the Templars and murdered their leaders. "vehemently opposed" does not seen like a good way to describe the relationship with your allies that helped you win your freedom.
Anonymous,
DeleteSo you’re going to try and score points by citing completely unrelated events in France that are 470 years apart? Really?
To save time, let's talk a bit about the trees in Touro Park, present in the 1939 aerial photo, for a bit. The photo was taken in May, not all the trees were fully leaved. For reference, see the May 2015 Google Earth Professional aerial photo. There was a large tree, possibly two of them, that were located slightly to the west of the circle at the center of the park. They were quite large. Their larger branches obscured sections of three of the paths (which present as dark lines crossing the paths under high contrast). The span of the branches is marked by red dots on a photo posted on FB, but not posted on this blog. The northernmost edge of the branches overlapped the southern edge of the rectangular feature on the east side of the tower. Mr. Miyagi was not part of the landscaping crew in Touro Park in 1939. The reason the rectangular outline is visible east of the tower in the 1939 aerial is because the trees had not produced their complement of leaves at that time. Had the leaves been present, the rectangular ground feature would not have been visible. See the October 1941 aerial photo for reference (available as USGS Earth Explorer). In 1970, there was a small tree on the north side of the feature, well displaced, for we can pick up its shadow on the landscape. In 1990 we can again see the shadow this well-displaced tree is throwing. Today, there is a tree situated within the rectangular feature. Just a little over a month until Arbor Day (April 27th)!!
ReplyDeletePatrick,
DeleteThe anonymous troll neglected to include the date of the photo submitted; 1899. I think the tree in the photo behind where the man was sitting, and is on the southwest side of the tower, likely wasn't there 40 years later.
Patrick;
DeleteHere is the link to the photo on your site, it is not in the negative form.
https://scontent.fyxe1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29386684_1600677176675146_1574514792260133423_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&_nc_eui2=v1%3AAeF9DSN590vq9Kw5kC0kX2eoteAZ91JwULFah8W9XocIsR9bSFbrOZ9qXp_i3DIXUkBCPfCpATC98ZcARhHFkJuZrd2j4KtTOh8WhEbeGYycCg&oh=7c5f3b0dd053434262b7c9c53094d519&oe=5B39A817
As you can see the foliage from the trees completely obliterates the highly visible sidewalks and roadways in places. But you are saying that the foliage is thin enough that you can see foundations that were buried, filled, landscaped and have lawn planted over them ? Features no one else noticed in the last 250+ years ?
https://tclf.org/landscapes/touro-park-and-old-stone-mill
" By 1900 a large volume of fill was added to the park"
It's become very clear the history we were taught is Not true. From the Sphinx to our own American history. Thank you Scott Wolter for bringing this to light, I know it's a fight. I'm very grateful for your hard work.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou have provided a bad link to the image that was supposed to support your assertion. Therefore, your argument is moot without the very evidence it was built upon. Care to try again?
Anonymous, Scott provided a link in his block to the FB page that I administer. On the timeline, find the 23 photo album that I posted with screen shots of slides. One of the slides has a narrative explaining the methodology that I used. In the narrative there are two links to a publicly shared Google Drive folder which contains 1) a PowerPoint version of all the material and 2) a PDF file of that PowerPoint. There is no smoke and mirrors with this stuff. Download the PowerPoint and use its functionality to do your own analysis. I did not correct my misuse of the terms NAVE and CHANCEL in either of the two publicly shared files. I did append my narrative admitting my first, incorrect use of those terms. The point is to make information available in a format that folks can work themselves - and that means anyone.
DeleteScott, the link works fine for me, if you are having trouble you can use the link you provided under the first photo at the top of your blog post.
DeleteIt is the 6th photo in the series.
The link didn't work for me, but it's up there and you're happy with it then we're good to go.
DeleteScott very interesting. Brings back my remembrance of your newport tower episode of america unearthed. Im reminded of the map you showed Jim that had the picture of the newport tower debunking his theory. This certainly does not resemble colonial era construction. I recently looked at a few of the churches in England and Denmark from the 1100s and these are direct match to the newport tower as you stated. With the geology, design, venus effect, and now this. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteBryan,
DeleteI'm glad to see you've done your own research and reached your own conclusions. What seems obvious to me, isn't as obvious to others To some, it doesn't make any sense. That's fine, but please bring evidence to support your contrary views.
Isn't that a fair request?
Personally, I have no doubts of the NT having a Templar origin. Came to a similar conclusion myself years ago. I have a tremendous interest in the equation of time equals zero function as described by Patrick in his Facebook posts. This idea has opened my mind to new levels of thought.
ReplyDeleteThere is a common theme of colors which keeps coming up. Red, White, and Black. The NT has the Red Orb, White Mason Stone and White Egg. I've seen black stones dispersed within the NT somewhat similar to the black stones on the front of Newgrange.
Has anyone determined the function of these black stones?
Do any of the stones comprising the NT have a meteoric origin?
Are there any more black stones in the NT other than in the pillars?
Would love to visit the place and see for myself.
Anthony Warren
I see two lines radiating away for the west side of the tower too. Maybe that makes it a super double-secret Templar church.
ReplyDeleteIn the last twenty-four hours you have submitted scratches on the negative, some tree mumbo jumbo, and now some hyper-diffusionist double secret Templar Church. We can see the sarcasm. Yep, your observation of a geometric pattern on the west side is good, but it means that the rest of the structure's circumference needs to be looked at for a similar geometric pattern. The focus is to rule out possible explanations. Patrick
ReplyDeleteSorry, Patrick. The double secret Templar Church comment was mine. It was meant to be as tongue-in-cheek ridiculous as your chancel idea is. I'm not the same guy who argued about negative scratches or trees.
DeleteThere are obviously artifact lines all over this image. To chose to see only the short two at the right of the tower to fit your chancel idea is dishonest, and it tells me everything I need to know about what you're trying to peddle here.
Bart
Bart,
DeleteFirst, thanks for commenting under your real name. Second, you opinion has been expressed without any factual support. Therefore, it is essentially worthless.
Do you have anything productive to add or are you simply trolling for attention?
To the "other Anonymous" who made the "Jesuit" comment; no more unproductive comments will be posted without proper identification. At least Bart has enough integrity put his name behind his sarcasm.
DeleteI fully expect that this comment will not see print, but here goes anyway.....
DeleteScott, what exactly do yo need for "factual support"? I see artifact lines all over this image. They all run east to west. The word "artifact" in photographic terms simply means an unintended image aspect contained within the picture not really existing, but appearing due to anomalies in the photographic equipment or developing process. You don't need to take my word for it. Show it to a photographic expert.
If my opinion about how this picture appears lacks "proof", then certainly your assertion that it shows a chancel on the east side of the tower also lacks proof.
The two lines that come off the west side of the tower are in perfect alignment with those on the east side....as if the artifact lines travel through the tower. There is another very obvious artifact line running west to east toward the bottom of the "slice of pie" shaped wedge formed by the walking paths about one tower width directly below the tower. The longer you look at the photo, the more of these lines you see all over this picture.....and they all run west to east.....almost like you're looking at the photo on a low definition cathode ray tube monitor or like the image went through a processor with dirty rollers.
I don't mind you holding me to a standard of proof. Just be intellectually honest and hold yourself and your guest bloggers to that same standard at the very least.
Again,
Bart
Bart,
DeleteYou apparently didn't notice that I used qualifying language in the title of this post, and in my comments and captions, regarding the possible presence of photographic evidence of a chancel once attached to the east side of the tower. That is what I call being honest.
What is noticeably absent is any comment about the features designed and built into the structure, and found in the ground, that represent clear and distinct evidence of a previously existing wooden ambulatory encircling the extant structure.
Do you not find this interesting or does it conflict with your, apparently, already entrenched views?
Bart (possibly my chiropractor friend from Iowa), there is no peddling and no dishonesty involved with this research, for you to suggest that is beyond the pale. Artifact lines? Yep, they can be found. So what one has to do is catalogue them and then compare them to the mechanism that created them. On the 1939 aerial there is a roller track on the image which passes slightly to the north of the tower. This group of lines are distinguishable and their orientation can be ascertained. The next two questions build from this: Do these lines have the same azimuth orientation as the ground feature on the east side of the tower? That answer is NO. Could this group of artifact lines have "induced" the offset, oriented rectangular outline? Possible, but when one assesses other year photos, with no roller track artifacts on the North side of the tower, and finds the same rectangular outline on the east side of the tower...then that answer becomes NO, as well. Patrick
DeleteBart, while there is an outline on the west side of the tower, I would not submit that it is in "perfect alignment" with the rectangular outline on the east side. To me it looked to be angulated just a bit off. Let's be clear, we are looking at a third-order effect...sub-surface disruption not seen in adjacent areas, ground settle, difference in height level/water retention causing variance in reflected light or vegetation growth, and captured via aerial photography (medium to high level atmospheric, space and using both analog and digital technologies). The rectangular outline on the east side pops in 1939, 1970, 1990, 2014, and 2016. Patrick
DeleteBart, pull the 1939 aerial photo from RIGIS, process it, send the pdf and original application mark up to Scott, and let's see if the same feature on the east side of the NT presents. Give us the visual product of your analysis. Back up your assertions, prove your counter-claim. Patrick
ReplyDeletePatrick:
ReplyDeleteWe know for sure there are buried power lines through the park.
Do you have a plat showing all the power lines, water lines, gas lines etc through the area ?
How do you "know for sure" there are power lines running under the park? I suspect there might be, but you're asking Patrick for proof, shouldn't be required to do the same?
DeleteWell Scott, yesterday Patrick invited me to read material from links on his site. So I read this one.(Thanks Patrick)
Deletehttp://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/tower_project_report_2007.pdf
"Our GPR survey indicated that the first 2.8 ft. of the park’s soil profile has been disturbed
in certain areas: buried electric utility lines stretch from utility poles on the park’s perimeter to
the statues, flagpole, and Tower."
Anonymous,
DeleteFair enough, you provided evidence to support your claim. Good. Now that wasn't that hard was it?
The pertinent question is whether there were any underground utilities that would be the basis for the outline seen on the east side of the tower in the 1939 aerial photo. Look forward to your findings. Patrick
DeleteBe careful to keep all the fringe theories straight, or you're liable to disprove some of them on accident.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, how could an egg stone become illuminated on the morning of the winter solstice if there was a chancel branching off to the east of the structure and shading out the morning sun?
Bart
Bart,
DeleteThe simple answer is the sun is in the southeastern part of the sky at 9:00 a.m. and comes through a second story window. Even if a chancel was there and it was two stories high, it wouldn't be in the way.
Next?
Well, this has gone about as far as it can go.... Now, not only was there without a doubt a chancel (even though you assure us your language is meant to be "qualifying") but now you know how high it was and where its roof peaked too?!! I suppose you can make imaginary structures any shape you want them to be and nobody could prove you wrong. Well done, Scott.
DeleteBart
Bart,
DeleteClearly you missed the point and the qualifying language; I said, "Even if a chancel was there...". Come on pal, get a grip. Further, chancel of not, the sun's rays coming in the south window from the southeastern position in the sky would be unobstructed. Look it up yourself and stop being difficult.
Geez...
Bart.
DeleteYou wrote: "For instance, how could an egg stone become illuminated on the morning of the winter solstice if there was a chancel branching off to the east of the structure and shading out the morning sun?"
The NT pillar height lifts the walled section of the structure off the ground and effectively creates an artificial horizon (in elevation). They had to do this because the terrain on the NE side of the tower (in the 56 to 70 degree azimuth arc) is higher than the MSL elevation where the tower is situated. They actually calculated how high the pillars had to be in order to produce the displaced artificial horizon. It is simple geometry. Find the MSL for tower's location, determine the high points in the 56-70 degree arc, and then do the calculation. Due to the falling terrain on the west side of the structure, the Sun's setting elevation actually drives below the tower's elevation. They incorporated this negative elevation (relative) into the final upward movement of the West window lightbox into the South window on the summer solstice. I've detailed the explanation for all of the above scenarios. It's a computational exercise. On the winter solstice the rising sun passes in exactly the opposite direction, entering the South window and then passing out the West window. It then continues to track down onto the Egg. The leading edge of the South window lightbox makes contact with the Egg at 08:45:50 EST. At this point in time, the Sun is at 138.75 degrees of azimuth and 13.22 degrees of elevation. Both of these values continue to increase as the Sun moves south along the horizon and gaining elevation to its maximum at Solar Noon. Time-lapse photography documented. Slid and explanatory narrative posted on that FB page.
Bart,
DeleteI read Reiersgord's book. I like his willingness to go off the beaten path and explore out of the box ideas. You could tell he was an engineer, he tried to reconcile the quirky things about the KRS that he knew the CW didn't adequately address. He could see the incongruities. You then see him deconstructing the KRS elements and then putting them back together the best that he could. I tip my hat to him.
Pat/Bart,
DeleteI might add that I knew Bro Reiersgord and spent time at his home discussing the Kensington Rune Stone and related Masonic topics long before I became a mason. He was the first to discuss the idea the inscription was carved by a Cistercian monk and it turns out he was right on. He was a very smart and good man who would be thrilled to know of the advancements in knowledge that continue to be made.
Scott, do you think that the Chesterton Windmill could have had a first story ambulatory as well, with it's ledges in the same place as the Newport Tower ?
ReplyDeleteNo, the history of the Chesterton Windmill is well documented and has no association with the Templars. It was originally constructed as an observatory (circa 1632) and retrofitted as a windmill later. You can read about it here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/moac/people/students/peter_cock/photos/chesterton_windmill/
DeleteThe Chesterton Windmill theory is a fantasy.
Delete“NOT FAR”
In the 19th century, an erroneous genealogical tracing of Benedict Arnold posited that he had grown up in Leamington, England, barely four miles distant from the Chesterton Windmill. Arnoldists were overjoyed because their hypothesis contended that the model for the Newport Tower was the Chesterton Windmill which, if Arnold had indeed grown up four miles distant, would be a fairly convincing piece of evidence.
Alas, the Leamington birth place for Arnold actually turned out to be LIMINGTON, England – which is 98.9 miles “as the crow flies” distant from the Chesterton Windmill. You can read about here:
-Arnold, Fred A. “An Account of the English Homes of the Three Early ‘Proprietors’ of Providence,” R. I. Hist. Soc. Collections, XIV, No. 2, 35-49, No. 3, 68-86. Providence 1921. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/accountofenglish00arno
Subsequent to this discovery of the actual birthplace of Benedict Arnold, which was discussed at length in Philip Ainsworth Mean’s 1942 book, “The Newport Tower,” the modified argument assumed the form that we see in Hertz’s 1995/1997 report – “not far from his birthplace.”
Today, if one were to drive from Limington, England to the Chesterton Windmill today, it would be a 130-mile drive taking an estimated 2 hours and 44 minutes. I don’t believe that Benedict Arnold would have driven back in 1633-1635.
IF Benedict Arnold did pay a visit to the Chesterton Windmill, he either rode a horse or, more likely, he walked. For our analysis, we are going to discard the present-day shortest route of 130 miles and reduce it to 110 miles (177 kilometers). There is no reason to unfairly pad our numbers to greatly from the 98.9-mile distance “as the crow flies.”
We will build our analysis on the well-established travel times related in the 14th century “Canterbury Tales.” Horses didn’t move any faster in the 17th century than the 13th and there wasn’t altogether any great change in diet that would markedly increase the nominal height of a person, enabling a longer stride.
The 109 km pilgrimage from London to Canterbury in “The Canterbury Tales” ON HORSE took approximately two to three days. Assuming the fastest rate of travel as two days, this is 54.5 km per day of travel. On horse, the 177 km distance from Limington to the Chesterton Windmill, and then returning, would have taken 6.5 days. This, therefore, becomes the actual definition, on horseback, of “not far.”
We can all see Benedict Arnold asking his father to borrow the family horse – if they even had one – for seven days so he could go check out a windmill. That makes sense – at least to Johannes Hertz.
In 2015 a re-enactor, walking the longer Winchester route (133 miles/214 km) related to Canterbury, took fourteen days to complete a one-way journey (214 km/14 = 15.28 km per day). Using these values, a round trip (344 km) journey from Limington to the Chesterton Windmill (377 km/15.28 km per day) would take 24.66 days just for the journey.
(https://www.quora.com/How-long-would-it-take-the-Canterbury-Tales-pilgrims-to-reach-Canterbury-and-return)
The “not far” distance for Benedict Arnold, on foot, equates to twenty-five days of hoofing it across England.
The Chesterton Windmill was completed in September 1633 (Hertz 1997: 88). Benedict Arnold and his father, William, departed from Dartmouth, located in the southwest of England (in proximity to Plymouth) on 01 May and arrived in America on June 24, 1635. IF Arnold EVER saw the Chesterton Windmill – as Arnoldists assert, it would have been between September 1633 and April 1635, an approximate nineteen-month window of opportunity. (Anderson 2005: 90)
What “not far” really means, is “not likely” and “not proven.”
21,000+ words that disassembled the 1995/1997 Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America AD 1000-1500 report on the Newport Tower: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PIxk1B_UvS2zSe971PGP6qjLquLeVYsA
DeletePatrick;
DeleteI have no opinion over whether the Chesterton Windmill inspired the Newport tower. However you may want to rejig your above statement. For example:
"In 2015 a re-enactor, walking the longer Winchester route (133 miles/214 km) related to Canterbury, took fourteen days to complete a one-way journey (214 km/14 = 15.28 km per day)."
15.28km = aprox. 9.5 miles. I can cover that distance in 3 hours lollygagging along, hardly a days journey. 12 hours walking at 3 to 4 mph would be around 50 km per day, easily attained. A well conditioned man could probably walk 80 km in 12 hours.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/1006250-average-miles-person-can-walk-per-day/
"While the average U.S. adult walks 2.5 to 3 miles per day, the maximum an adult can walk per day is much more than that. An average adult can walk 3 to 4 miles per hour at a comfortable pace or 96 miles in 24 hours. The world record for the most miles walked in 24 hours was set by Paul Forthomme in 1984. He walked 140.698 miles."
Anonymous,
DeleteNo re-jiggering required. But we can discuss. The starting point is with a historical rate of travel in England. I used the Canterbury Tale of Chaucer. Then I used the re-enactor's rate of travel as a second data point. It's a framework. Had I picked a random rate of travel everyone would be in an uproar of my random choice. They would holler "What is that based on!" So I started with two historical examples and stayed with it. THAT BEING SAID, I acknowledge that the Canterbury travelers where lolly-gagging. Was Arnold capable of walking at a faster rate than the Canterbury drunks, absolutely. Could he average 3-4 mph, absolutely. Did he do 96 miles in one day, likely not. Did Arnold ever write of his awe-inspiring trip to the Chesterton Windmill? No. Could he have passed by it? No one can rule it out with 100% certainty. Is it likely or plausible that he would have traveled over 100 miles in 1630 at his young age? That is more doubtful than likely. The larger point is that the Chesterton Windmill model for the NT was plausible with Arnold being from Leamington, but since he was from Limington, it then became more implausible than probable. Yet, the proponents for the CWindmill model fail to acknowledge the improbability of the revised scenario. The Chesterton-Arnold connection is absolute speculation - all conjecture that should have been shelved long ago.
Patrick;
DeleteI tend to agree with most of what you say, however I thought that your turning the trip into a 25 day marathon is a gross exaggeration and makes you look somewhat dishonest.
I still have two unanswered questions:
1) Do you think there may be a tree obscuring the area in question in the 1939 photo ?
2) Do you know the location of all the modern era power lines, pipelines, and water lines in the area in question ?
Anonymous, you have to do a historical benchmark - a qualified one, that is - for a starting point for a point of argument. Had Benedict made a record of his journey there would be no reason for anyone to conjecture at all. There is no record, no documented linkage, no affirmed connection between Arnold and the Chesterton Windmill. It is all unproven speculation. As such, it is a hypothesis which holds no greater value as any of the Pre-Columbian hypothesis that have been proposed. I have already commented on the 25 day length. Notwithstanding the high value, the line of argument on how Arnold traveled, if he did, and the length of time, is speculation on top of speculation. It is all worthless. If one wants to play the Chesterton Windmill speculation game, then round churches within that distance radius should also be objectively submitted. Point, counterpoint. Patrick
Delete"Anonymous, you have to do a historical benchmark - a qualified one, that is - for a starting point for a point of argument. Had Benedict made a record of his journey there would be no reason for anyone to conjecture at all."
Delete-
Patrick makes a good point here. It would be nice if there were a written record from the first English inhabitanauts of Newport saying "This brand new place and there's already a bitchin' tower here!" Benedict Arnold refers to "my tower". Do we have an earlier reference?
Roderick
Yes Patrick, as I said, I tend to agree with you about the Limington, Leamington thing ! I am not arguing otherwise.
DeleteI still have two unanswered questions:
1) Do you think there may be a tree obscuring the area in question in the 1939 photo ?
2) Do you know the location of all the modern era power lines, pipelines, and water lines in the area in question ?
Earlier reference, yep. The 1634 William Wood Map:
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1598097493599781.1073741901.114338978642314/1575926779150186/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1598097493599781.1073741901.114338978642314/1575927985816732/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1598097493599781.1073741901.114338978642314/1575929175816613/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1598097493599781.1073741901.114338978642314/1575951942481003/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1598097493599781.1073741901.114338978642314/1576868189056045/?type=3&theater
I've looked at the map. It would be helpful if you could point out where the tower is on it. Thanks.
DeleteRoderick
Roderick,
DeleteAny errors in my computational result which placed Old Plymouth on the line of latitude which corresponds exactly to Newport, Rhode Island? The methodology is quite simple, I explained how to do it. Then I cross-compared accuracy relativeness with the John Smith Map of ca. 1614.
William Wood Map
DeleteRoderick stated “I've looked at the map. It would be helpful if you could point out where the tower is on it. Thanks.” He was very courteous about it, which is a nice way to engage in a dialogue.
The Tower is Old Plymouth. Skeptics have never accepted that for an answer, because they are skeptical. I get it – and so do the rest of you. Skeptics want to see the word “tower” with a depiction of a circular structure there and we don’t find that on the William Wood Map. I remember the first few times I looked at this map…I didn’t see Newport, I didn’t see a tower, all I saw was a common symbol for a European settlement along with the label of “Old Plymouth.” At that time, it certainly didn’t strike me as being evidence for a pre-Colonial stone tower.
At that time, I clearly could understand why skeptics pushed back on the WWM being any tangible evidence of the NT. Then I kept reading how pre-Colonial advocates kept asserting that it was – although they didn’t really lay out a case for “why” it was. Could I be missing something?
One day I decided to really look at the WWM. I downloaded or screen captured a copy and set to work. Lo and behold, the WWM had a latitude scale on it. Hmmm…that’s a good starting point. Let’s do a really simple analysis to determine the latitude of “OP.” It is either going to be Newport, or it isn’t. William Wood placed that latitude scale on his map for a reason, it is a map after all.
We have the advantage today where we can digitally magnify images (up to 400% in MS PowerPoint) to ensure that we are HYPER-accurate with a line draw to measure dimensions (and then I placed a 2.5X magnifier on the computer screen). Prior to this digital method, one was relegated to magnifying the image via photocopying. This could produce a fairly accurate result as well, although I don’t know if it was ever done because it was never written about.
“Old Plymouth” is Newport. Skeptics, in general, are loathe to even acknowledge that point.
“OP” is Newport = FACT.
Even if skeptics DO acknowledge the above, they already have a canned answer for anyone who then asserts that “OP” equates to Newport Tower.
Here it comes: “special pleading.”
The “special pleading” counter argument is justified in many cases, but not here. Why? Because one can employ a deductive process to examine timelines, known English Colonial settlement patterns, and the “OP” place label. For folks who understand the history of New England, the deductive process reveals elements of history already known to them. For me, who grew up in Illinois, it took a couple of years of researching and writing about the early land grants and deeds of a town at the mouth of the Kennebec River, Phippsburg, to understand HOW and WHY the label “OP” came to be marked in the Newport, RI locale. It’s a deductive process.
Skeptics will, obviously disagree, with my assertions. “Show me the tower” they will say. I’ll say “Go read on how Pluto was discovered, then read about how all those sub-atomic particles were discovered.” In other words, go understand how deduction is a tool that science uses all the time to find answers to vexing questions. It is used in history, as well.
Patrick,
DeleteI didn't see much less check your computations. As a followup to my earlier question 'Patrick makes a good point here. It would be nice if there were a written record from the first English inhabitanauts of Newport saying "This brand new place and there's already a bitchin' tower here!" Benedict Arnold refers to "my tower". Do we have an earlier reference?' all I was asking was "Is the tower on the map and if so where?" If it's on the map, then yes, that's an earlier reference. I just can't find it on the map. So that was the question.
Roderick
Roderick, there is no tower depicted on the WWM. Patrick
DeleteOkay Patrick, thanks. So what was Old Plymouth later was called Newport. Okay. You still haven't answered my question directly but you've done it implicitly and the answer I'm hearing is "No, the Tower is not on the map."
DeleteThat gives me a provisional answer to my original question which was "Benedict Arnold refers to 'my tower'. Do we have an earlier reference?" and that provisional answer is "No, we do not have an earlier reference."
I don't know why you chose to go the long way (or so it appears). Am I missing something?
Roderick
Roderick, the blog comments get time-lagged occasionally. Reminds me of pre-email days, being on deployment, and letters coming in when the supply helicopter dropped them off. Of course they were out of time sequence, so it was important to sequentially number the envelopes! No earlier written reference than early 1677. Some have asserted (beginning with Pohl) that the Plowden Petition refers to the NT, but a well-written paper by Doug Weller refuted that notion. Others have asserted that various 15th/16th century maps, beginning with Verrazano, depict a settlement/NT in Narragansett Bay. These assertions have not been accepted. There is one 17th century map, the WWM, pre-dating the colonial settlement of Aquidneck Island. The WWM map, when it is put forth by folks as evidence of a prior European settlement in the locale which we find the NT, gets tossed out by skeptics on the basis that OP is not Newport. This is not true, OP is Newport. Then the skeptics will assert that the WWM doesn't depict the NT, and that is true. History never records every detail. David Brody always says to me...Marco Polo crossed the Great Wall of China, yet he never wrote of it.
DeletePatrick,
DeleteOkay, thank you, finally. The answer to my question "Patrick makes a good point here. It would be nice if there were a written record from the first English inhabitanauts of Newport saying "This brand new place and there's already a bitchin' tower here!" Benedict Arnold refers to "my tower". Do we have an earlier reference?"
Was in the end "No". So why did you steer me to the map? I'm still confused.
Roderick
"letters coming in when the supply helicopter dropped them off. Of course they were out of time sequence, so it was important to sequentially number the envelopes!"
DeleteThe Post Office did that with the postmark.
Roderick
"Marco Polo crossed the Great Wall of China, yet he never wrote of it." And Washington never saw the Washington Monument and Lincoln never saw the Lincoln penny. Christopher Wren was a special case. Because what we call the Great Wall of China had not even been started until the Ming Dynasty, after MP's visit during the Yuan Dynasty. Anyway the Wall only guarded the northern approaches. There are two takeaways here: David Brody seems to an unreliable witness in the instance you cited and there seem to be no records of the Newport Tower prior to Benedict Arnold's.
DeleteRoderick
Roderick,
DeleteYour charming personality is showing. If I mis-paraphrased what David Brody had remarked to me, then I apologize to David. Certainly not you. There were many defensive walls spread throughout China that were constructed prior to Marco Polo's fourteen year sojourn through Asia/Serica/Cathay. The "Great Wall" is a wrap-up term that is a composite usage. Perhaps Polo never went to the northern part of the country, but there were other fortification walls spanning the Silk Road entry by which Polo traveled. The overall point is that not everything is mentioned in historical accounts. In the case of the Newport Tower, we only hear of the finished product, the re-purposed stone tower converted to Arnold's mill. There are no written accounts of the estimated million pounds of construction material gathered to construct the tower nor of its construction. Somewhat remarkable by its absence, but then again, not everything is historically recorded. Unfortunately, we had to subtract serious points from your overall score for your postmark quip. More points were subtracted by your excessive use of quoting other blog comments. When you get to that point with your comments...you have run out of useful things to contribute.
Patrick,
DeleteI was only quoting my and your posts to make it easy to track what was actually being discussed. The thing that bothers me and always has about "no earlier record" is that the first settlers would likely have said "Hey there's already a bitchin' tower here!" and made a record of it. If in your navy days when you went into your space and there was a Marantz stereo receiver there, you would have made a note of it. Same principle.
Sorry if you feel I slighted your friend but you brought his name into it and linked him to a point raised by MANY people which was long ago addressed in the literature. I truly did not mean to give offense so I apologize for doing so.
Roderick
Roderick,
DeleteI can understand why the absence of an earlier record is a) bothersome to some and b) evidence that the NT wasn't there when the first English colonists settled the area ca. 1639 (or transited the area, ca. 1629-1633, William Wood; Verrazano 1524). I get it, believe me. Why would it not have been mentioned directly? The best reply I can give is that things are sometimes not mentioned, or written about, and if they were, sometimes those records don't survive. What I can tell you is that I spent 18 months tracing the deed history of the Phippsburg, Maine area. I have over 1000 deeds and wills that span from 1661 to 1800. I was tracing the land history and plotting it. It was fascinating for me. What I can say is that things I would expect to find their way into records didn't show up, while interesting details that I didn't expect were there. The point is that details we think would be important today just weren't important enough to have been recorded four centuries ago. There are many unique things that all of us have seen in our lives, but how many of those things did we write down? I know that I didn't because the world was filled with so many unique things, places, and people which, for me, in my career, I became accustomed to seeing it, or expecting it. For the NT, IF it pre-existed Colonial settlement, while surprising in one sense, it would have been unremarkable in another - the early settlers had seen numerous structures of that sort over in Europe. Therefore, just a mundane object on the landscape. It wasn't a marker for metes and bounds for land, so it didn't find its way into deeds (excepting the early 1677 deed). I would have expected the construction to have been mentioned in some type of record. It was a substantial undertaking in that period. Thanks for the reply. Patrick
Patrick,
Delete"For the NT, IF it pre-existed Colonial settlement, while surprising in one sense, it would have been unremarkable in another - the early settlers had seen numerous structures of that sort over in Europe."
But it's a Templar Church and you've already put a lot of work into explaining why Englishmen (which is what we're talking about) didn't see things around a hundred miles away in England and now they've seen "numerous" Templar Churches in Europe? Do you see why I'm having trouble with the fact that there is no record from the settlers or the mapmaker?
Roderick
Patrick,
DeleteSo you have the tower being absent in the historical record prior to Benedict Arnold. You completely agree with that.
Secondly, you have zero archaeological evidence of the tower being there prior to the colonial period.
You seem like a reasonable person, why do you cling to this NT Templar theory? It genuinely doesn’t make sense to me.
Regards,
D
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.114955778580634.20460.114338978642314/1615044715238392/?type=3&theater
DeleteRoderick,
DeleteI can understand why you are troubled with the fact that there is no direct and very explicit mention of the NT in any Colonial records prior to the early 1677 deed. I was troubled, as well, because it seems very rational for there to have been, potentially, a mention of it. I was also troubled by the fact that there was no mention of its construction phase in the Colonial Era considering it was a significant project that would have involved a large number of persons to accomplish (if it was done in fairly quick order). Neither mention exists. Stalemate in terms of what was expected. I moved on to other things. I read Godfrey’s thesis and I wasn’t satisfied with it. I read as much of the available literature as I could find, just wasn’t satisfied with that either. What I will say was that the alignments in the structure suggested a design and purpose, at least originally, of something other than a wind-powered grist mill. I then did the most basic thing one can do, I looked at the one piece of evidence that incontrovertibly exists – the structure itself. Took measurements with the help of others, took photos, and worked with others to capture as much time-lapse photography to help me understand the interplay between the lightboxes and spotlights and the niches and landmarks. There was only going to be two results: a) completely non-synchronous movement with an occasional random intersection or b) a clearly discernible pattern/sequencing of the illuminations tied to significant astronomical events. I know that Penhallow et al had done some of the latter and had written about it, but a lunar minor/major event that happened every 19 and 38 years, while it was interesting, just didn’t some to be a primary basis for the potential alignments in the tower. I don’t ascribe to the structure being originally constructed for the purpose of operating as a grist mill. It was re-purposed for that use. The additional alignments inform me that Penhallow’s, and others, assertions of it likely being a nave of Medieval Era church was correct. If evidence is found of a structure, even a temporary one or one that was only minimally completed, being off to the east of the tower and connected into the dimensioning of the ambulatory, then it stands that it very well was a Templar design. This statement holds because, as best as the historical research has shown, only Templar constructed church structures had the rectangular portion (chancel) extending off the east side of the nave/ambulatory.
D,
DeleteThere is no publicly available written record which speaks of the NT prior to the Feb 1677 land deed for the Jewish cemetery (where it is incidentally mentioned). I have no other non-public domain written material for the NT.
The Godfrey excavation in 1948/1949 did not produce an evidence that was dated earlier than the Colonial period. For reference, the campsites that we occupied during our Scout camping adventures likewise had no 1970s material left behind as we scoured them completely clean.
I don’t cling to anything. My research goal is to differentiate between all the evidence and then explore the different possibilities. This isn’t just some intellectual journey of discovery where I distill the written accounts on the NT. I’ve been there to measure the tower numerous times, have been involved with others in capturing time-lapse photography of the illuminations, and spent a lot of time doing mind-numbing analysis of the movements. I had to distinguish between what is random and what was purposeful, by design. I will say that the NT is a hybrid of different astronomical design elements, but one thing is very clear, the 8-22 (and reverse) numerical value is imbedded throughout the structure. Too many imbeds to be happenstance. Why the focus on the 8-22? Because of the KRS.
Just a few other things. I have enjoyed our back and forth discourse. We believe two entirely different historical paths for the NT and KRS. When I stepped into this research, it was to answer a personal question of mine. I figured that there had to be something that irretrievably marked the NT/KRS/SPR/NRS as non-Medieval Era artifacts. There had to be some element that, whether singularly or in groups, clearly pointed to a post-Medieval Era basis. I waded through all the B.S. and weak lines of arguments (on both sides) and tossed them into the trash, then ran down all the other ones, and in the midst of all this work I still didn’t find a clear marker that dropped one, or any of them, into a post- Medieval Era basis. I am sure that your opinion differs from mine, but I have to tell you that I just didn’t find any markers.
I also didn’t find any explicit mention of who was responsible for these aforementioned items. It wasn’t really a goal of mine. I will say that there is a common thread connecting all of them – and that is mathematics, astronomy, and geodesy. Every item has those elements infused in them. Start with the evidence – just the objects and/or inscriptions themselves – and work from there.
Was it Templars (Freemasons)? That calls for speculation on my part. Could it have been? It could have.
Here’s what I will say. The NT/KRS/SPR/NRS were pronounced to be DOA prematurely. The persons and organizations that made the pronouncements would have been better served if they had just said “We don’t know at this point in time.” But they didn’t. They accepted sub-marginal research and investigation as the basis for their premature announcements.
D,
DeleteAs far as the historical record goes, we have not seen all the documents that exist yet. I know that sounds cryptic because it was meant to be. My advice is to hold off on that point for a while and let's see what happens.
The archaeological evidence has been presented in the form of the discovery of the remnants of two wooden post holes each 16' off two of the stone and mortar columns of the structure. You might recall they were discovered in 2008 during the salvage archaeological dig by the people with Chronognostic. Further, they also found the layer of stones below multiple layers of fill that could be related to the original construction. Therefore the statement that "zero archaeological evidence" has been found is incorrect.
You apparently, along with several others, ignore the architectural, Masonic symbolism, astronomical alignments, the complicated mathematical aspects, along with the long-range alignment to Kensington, Minnesota, where we find a genuine medieval Templar document, that only points to one group as having constructed it. As a "colonialist" you have to explain how, with supporting evidence, this stone and mortar structure that would have taken many months if not years to construct, was built by the colonists as a windmill when their normal practice was construct them quickly of wood.
Remember, the Newport Tower could not function structurally as a windmill with the current design. So, help me understand, when all the facts are against it, how it can be a colonial windmill?
"In 2015 a re-enactor, walking the longer Winchester route (133 miles/214 km) related to Canterbury, took fourteen days to complete a one-way journey (214 km/14 = 15.28 km per day)."
ReplyDeleteLess than ten miles a day? Was he a poof?
Roderick
Roderick, he must have been! We covered that distance on Halloween night running around as many neighborhoods as we could to. We covered half that distance running from the cops when they broke up a kegger party out in the cornfields.
DeleteWater lines run down the middle of Mill, Pelham, and Bellevue St/Ave. Spur line from Bellevue to water fountain at far Easter end of park. Sewer line is on opposite side of Mill Street. Aside from spur line to water fountain, no sewer/Water lines in Touro Park. Info via phonecon w/ City of Newport public servants looking at diagrams pulled up on their computers. Only electrical, per prior conversation with Jim Egan, is a conduit from statue on south side of tower providing feed for tower lighting. Tower had no lighting in 1948/49 as Godfrey excavated area and no mention made of electrical provisions. Patrick
Delete"Pat,
DeleteThere is a shallow electric line that comes up towards the tower from the corner of Mills St and Touro park west but I do not think it extends under the areas you shaded. The electric line for the tower lights extends from Channing monument but again not in the shaded area. No gas or sewer to my knowledge."
Email correspondence; 21 Mar 18; City of Newport. This individual is who one contacts to request access to get inside the locked gate at the NT. He and his staff are great folks. Very courteous, very professional, and they have no public opinion on the structure's origin.
Patrick:
Delete" Only electrical, per prior conversation with Jim Egan, is a conduit from statue on south side of tower providing feed for tower lighting."
So you do not know where the buried lines are that go to the various light standards throughout the park ?
Several things come to mind.....
Delete1) no paved roads
2) cart roads or horse trails at best
3) nothing probably was a straight shot
4) could have been raining, cold, etc....or, at worst, ran out of food and had to beg to get some from "peasants".
5) didn't have any maps..just "peasants" pointing this way and that way, since they didn't have a clue as to which way to go for something they never heard of...(like asking a tourist for directions....). The "non GPS" generation has no clue as to what happens with paper maps....(it they know what they are)
6) only the very rich went on "sightseeing" tours.. the rest, well, farming was a good occupation....
How did the Newport Tower avoid destruction? Seems like someone within the local populace at least discouraged demolition.
ReplyDeleteIt was well-built to begin with. I am not from New England, but there seems to be a conventional wisdom not to tear down old barns, houses, structures in that part of the country, and I have read the same sentiment extends throughout other parts of the US. Brings bad luck. The area of Touro Park was in the process of being subdivided so houses could be built on it in the mid-19th century. This development attempt led to the land being purchased and donated to the city as a park.
DeleteThank you, Patrick. I figured it must have been to survive the gunpowder explosion. I was unaware of the bad mojo in tearing down buildings. Is the name of the person\persons responsible for the donation on public record?
DeleteApologies for not signing the question,
Anthony Warren
"Named for Judah Touro, the Newport-born benefactor who funded its purchase by the City in 1854, this 2.25-acre park is home to the Old Stone Mill. The Newport Mercury reported in 1855 that “a Mr. Bourmann of New York” was responsible for the park’s layout; but this was likely a reference to landscape gardener Eugene Baumann, who also landscaped the five-acre grounds of the nearby Beaulieu House, designed by Calvert Vaux."
DeleteScott and Patrick,
DeleteDo either of you know if local authorities would be interested in a targeted dig? The location of two post holes is already known. The distance between them is also already known. It's not hard to put two and two together to figure out where the other holes should be. Even if permission were only given for one spot. Finding a post hole in a predicted location would go a long way as proof.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteThis is exactly what I've been wanting to do for the last decade. It'll happen soon; we have a plan.
Scott,
DeleteAre you hiring? I have several weeks left of physical therapy and lower body traction but, I should be ready to go soon. The NT is on my Bucket List.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteUnfortunately, I'm not hiring. I suggest you visit the tower on the winter solstice; it's become a pilgrimage site for Freemasons and those interested in seeing the only still extant structure built by the medieval Knights Templar on this continent.
Scott,
DeleteI wish the joking tone of my voice came through in my words. I got giddy about your plan. I've wanted to dig for post holes around the Newport Tower since I was 22. This is something I'd be more than willing to volunteer for. I'm sure you already have all the help you need. Just keep me in mind if you need an extra hand.
Anthony Warren
Hi Scott and Patrick. This morning I'm curious about why there are three medieval stonehole rocks close together on Skrael Hill at Runestone Park. I've got a beginning theory that the three stonehole rocks within a few paces of one another may have been intended to represent an ending point for a line shooting from the Newport Tower to the Runestone Park area.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of a more modern (but still medieval) use of what used to be considered ley-lines. Was there a reliably useful way of positioning Kensington's Runestone Park at the end of a predetermined line from the NT, and then marking the spot with the three stonehole rocks, maybe as a statement which may have been understood around the time of an already-existing NT, and around 1362? In part, I'm trying to understand the idea behind the KRS being a land-claim.
Since it seems to me that a more logical choice for a land-claim would be where the Pomme de Terre River discharges into the MN River (gaining the most from the MN River watershed going north), I'm trying to come up for a reason land-claimers would choose instead a certain spot (Runestone Hill), a certain distance up the Chippewa River.
I would like to know if there was a predetermining significance about the precise trojectory between the KRS and the Newport Tower. If so, I think the end of that projected line may be Skrael Hill next to Runestone Hill.
Typically, old ley-lines began and ended at topographical features such as hills, or knolls. For some reason, Skrael Hill was chosen out to mark with three stonehole rocks rather than Runestone Hill. Why would this be?
Could it have anything to do with very precise measuring ability, or is this asking too much of our beloved adventurers--shooting an accurate line all the way from the East Coast? So, is there a purposeful, direct connection-line between the Newport Tower and the KRS? I believe the answer is likely to be yes, especially if the NT was already in existence (as marking southern Vinland) at the time the KRS was carved and left on Runestone Hill.
I would think that if there was a direct connection between the NT (as southern Vinland) and the KRS, that connection may have been reinforced by accurately shooting a predetermined line running between the NT and the KRS. Maybe this proposed "ley-line" (for lack of a better word), if it did exist, was more reason to suppose a connection to a land-claim than the actual geography of the rivers involved--but, who is to know at this point?
We know for sure that the KRS party came west from an actual location called Vinland, in 1362. Why not suppose that the NT may have been an already-existing sort of headquarters for the men to leave the East Coast from? (This was Holand's idea, too, but in connection with an unlikely Knutsen search party.) If so, what were the men hoping to acquire? Land, furs, souls or treasure--or what combination of these reasons, I wonder?
By the way, the proposed Norse Code-stone I discovered in 2015 is a mere ten miles from the 45th Paralelle and is directly south from where the river reaching highest up into the MN River watershed discharges. This is also close to where a huge waterway circle entering America's heartland is completed, or connected together (roughly between Lake Traverse and Big Stone Lake). The N/S Continental Divide is also very close-by But, most significantly, there are also very many valid Norse evidences just across the border, in NE S. Dakota--as you well know, Scott.
May I have a few of your thoughts about this, gentlemen...and please don't consider this a challenge. I'm only looking into alternative possibilities concerning long distance ley-lines and long distance land-claims. Thank you for your indulgence.
Bob Voyles
https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:wh247277x
ReplyDeleteI have bought of few of these to see various aspects of the structure in past. Some of these photos are pretty good for detail.
DeleteAnd trees.
DeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. The very first picture shows the two large trees on the SE aspect of the tower. We had previously identified on the 1939 aerial photo the shadow outline that the foliage of these trees cast upon the ground. We have already discussed this. In the 1951 Godfrey thesis, Figure 4, there is a ca. 1948 photo of the area on the eastern aspect of the structure. The area is clear of trees, just like we have presented. Your counter-assertion is not supportable. To be contrarian is one thing, to present a non-supportable argument is an entirely different issue. All you do is clog up the conversation.
There is no foregone conclusion that the outline on the ground is the chancel. There is a long road to travel to confirm what is currently a supposition. Could it be? Potentially. Is it absolute, at this point? No, it most certainly isn’t. Aerial photos are remote sensing. They are a suggestion of potential underlying features. They don’t always work out – that is the very realistic and pragmatic point of view. Regardless of what might be found, or not found, down the road…the immediate point is that your tree argument is the one thing that we already know the result on – and it is already proven to be false.
Quit gumming up the works just to be contrarian.
Patrick;
ReplyDelete"the immediate point is that your tree argument is the one thing that we already know the result on – and it is already proven to be false."
" The area is clear of trees, just like we have presented. Your counter-assertion is not supportable."
So you argue that there were no trees there in 1948, therefore there were no trees there in 1939 ? And my assertion is not suportable !!! Even though you can see the trees there in the 1939 aerial photo ? What do you think is obscuring portions of the pathways there ? Why is that area so much darker (or lighter in the negative photo Scott shows ) than the lawn areas without trees ?
Anon, take some oxygen, do the paint on, paint off exercise, and then go find a photo that shows Mr. Miyagi's rectangular tree. Patrick
DeletePatrick/Anonymous and All,
DeleteI think we've beaten the "tree" thing to death. The only way to answer the question is for an archaeological dig to be performed. Until then, we have to rely on the facts we can see that point in only one direction: the medieval Templars.
We already have the spot-on Templar architecture, the egg/notched back-to-back keystones, the winter solstice illumination, the long range alignment to the Kensington Rune Stone (Troll alert: don't bother sending snide comments, it's been over a decade since I published this discovery and if anyone could refute it they would have. It's there, deal with it.), numerous astronomical alignments, and compelling evidence of a previously exiting wooden ambulatory.
The apparent evidence of a chancel is merely frosting on the cake. Who wants a piece?
Patrick:
ReplyDelete" The area is clear of trees, just like we have presented."
Vintage 1939 Newport Rhode Island Travel Brochure
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/~yMAAOSw~CRTpMwf/s-l1600.jpg
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNice travel brochure from 1939. The window is the south window. The tree branches that you see are on the SE quadrant of tower, not the east.
The tree thing has been beaten to death. Let's move on.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any speculations on what the Templars kept inside the structure?
I've come to believe it may have housed a sacred meteorite.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteI can imagine all kinds of things, but we really will likely never know.
Scott
"Cambridge Round Church was built by the Knights Templar, circa 1130, and exhibits the exact same design and architecture as the Newport Tower."
ReplyDeleteNot so Scott;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Sepulchre,_Cambridge
" It was built by the Fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre, who were probably a group of Austin canons."
Sorry Anonymous; it is so, and in this arena Wikipedia cannot be trusted and is for preschoolers. “Probably…” Come on man. Who do you think the Fraternity was of the Holy Sepulcher was?
DeleteSorry Scott, you must have it confused with Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
ReplyDeletehttps://churchoftheholysepulchre.net/
Not the same church:
http://www.britainexpress.com/counties/cambridgeshire/az/cambridge/round-church.htm
https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/church-of-the-holy-sepulchre-cambridge-1497
” Come on man. Who do you think the Fraternity was of the Holy Sepulcher was?"
Not Templars!
The Templars were a small almost unknown, fledgling organization when the church was built. The Templars were not around for the first crusade. (1096-1099)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_in_England#Templar_locations_in_England
"King Henry II (1154–1189) granted the Templars land across England, including some territory by Castle Baynard on the River Fleet, where they built a round church, patterned after the Knights Templar headquarters on Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Templar estate at Cressing Temple in Essex was one of the very earliest and largest Templar estates in England."
Anonymous,
DeleteThere is no confusion on my part. Following the charter written by Bernard de Clairvaux, the Templar order was officially founded with a papal bull issued by the Pope in January of 1129, at the Council of Troyes, in France. However, the Templar tradition existed two decades before in Jerusalem, and in France, Egypt and other areas in the east millennia prior to that. We also have the correct church in Jerusalem, along with all of the other structures on the Temple Mount constructed using the same architecture. Both the Templars and the Cistercians incorporated the two-story, round tower on eight columns with Romanesque arches between them in their churches and lavatoriums within their abbeys.
Wait, what ?
Delete"and in France, Egypt and other areas in the east millennia prior to that."
Never heard of such a thing. Do you have evidence of this ? Surely you are not suggesting the Templars were around before Christ ?
And what evidence do you have that the Templars built the Round Church in Cambridge ? Just saying it is so is not enough, can you show me some proof ?
Did you really think the Templars suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 1129? They are simply the continuation of the lineage of an ancient tradition you won’t find on Wiki, or anywhere else. And yes, the “Templar” tradition predates Jesus, who was just one individual, albeit on of the more well known in a long line of initiates.
DeleteWiki and “probably” doesn’t work as evidence of anything. Show me more that it wasn’t the Templars who were behind the construction of Cambridge round church.
Scott, Here is a link showing the Cambridge Round Church as it was, a three story church, not two stories as you claim
Delete" Both the Templars and the Cistercians incorporated the two-story, round tower on eight columns with Romanesque arches between them in their churches"
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/salvin/1.html
Not Wiki links:
http://www.britainexpress.com/counties/cambridgeshire/az/cambridge/round-church.htm
http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/churches/camsepulch.htm
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol3/pp123-132#h3-0004
At any rate, you have really piqued my interest with what you said.
Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying Jesus Christ was a Templar ?
Anonymous,
DeleteTwo stories or three; the relative proportions are the same; stop being a jerk please.
These traditions throughout time went by different names. Was Yeshua ben Yosef part of these traditions? Yes he was.
Scott:
Delete" Show me more that it wasn’t the Templars who were behind the construction of Cambridge round church."
You ask for more evidence, I give it to you, and you respond with this:
" stop being a jerk please"
Perhaps it's time for you to man up and give me your evidence ? You are the one making the claim that bucks the historical record, it is up to you to prove your claim, it's not up to me to prove what history already says.
If Jesus was a Templar, according to you, he would have worshiped the Earth Goddess, this means you seem to be saying there is no christian God.
First commandmant,,,,“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”
In a recent interview that you had,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V33r1NoyfxQ&feature=share
you refer to, at around the 26 minute mark, the Templars as "we".
Do you believe you are in fact a Templar ?
Do you in fact worship the Goddess ?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe I didn't put this together when, I first read Patrick's words. How he described his deduction process in locating Vinland. The area pinpointed by Patrick seems to match up with William Mann's work "Templar Meridians". Where Mr. Mann overlays "The Shepherd's of Arcadia" over the East coast of the United States, seems to fit Patrick's work. I'm guessing the three shepherds are the three stars of Orion's belt and the goddess is Sirius. I'm also guessing 2 of the stars are used to pinpoint the location.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI have read William Mann's book "Templar Meridians." His section on Owl's Head Mountain and the June 24th trooping up the mountain to watch the sun rise was the impetus for me to start delving into the length of day/length of night analysis to derive latitude (gnomons, Ptolemy, etc.). Mann was looking at symbolism with respect to cartography and geodesy. It was a perceptive approach on his part.
I bought and read Mann's book several years ago. I found much of the material to be very interesting. I could go with his notion that Templar treasure is dispersed in various places in North America...including Minnesota. Why not?
ReplyDeleteIn one of the Masters' paintings featured in Mann's book, there seemed to be emphasis directed westward from Minneapolis/St. Paul, if I am not mistaken. I don't go for the "Dan Brown-related material" in his book, but there are many aspects of his research that I feel might be appreciated.
The Templars were very keen, and I don't think they would put all their eggs (treasure) in one basket. Who knows, maybe they left "token" deposits of treasure in various places, in conjunction with land-claiming from various locations. It may be that the Templars assisted in doing some of this even before the break-up with the Catholic Church in the early 1300's--say, during some of the Crusade years.
Who knows for sure when the Templars may have begun to "unload" some of the their immense wealth. Some may have been deposited in Minnesota back when the Church and the Templars were still joined at the hip. In this scenario, the Templars and the Church, together, may have deposited treasure, in conjunction with a land-claim, and the treasure would be considered a symbol of power identifying the land-claimer.
I see the Templars as likely sharing mapping information with the Church a hundred years before their break-up. So, who knows, maybe the 1362 KRS party was interested in retrieving, or "acquiring" earlier buried treasure.
In this latter scenario, the KRS party would be POST-Templars, or in other words, persons with Templar backgrounds, and they would be trying to beat the Catholic Church to Templar (and Church) treasure.
But, in all this, we would need to keep in mind that long-distance land-grabs were once in vogue before colder weather and disease struck in Europe and the population clock was run back. It makes a bit of sense that some previous land-claim attempts would be forgotten, along with any associated hidden treasure.
So, what I remember most from Mann's book is that he believed in Templar treasure as not all being in one basket, but being spread around...and not necessarily back in Europe.
- Bob Voyles
Bob,
DeleteYour religious views are coloring your judgment; just an FYI. The Templars absolutely would NEVER have shared treasure or intelligence with the Church. No way, no how.
I'm glad you've already the book, "Templar Meridians". I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the "Hooked X" and Double Cross on page 230, and what I believe to be the symbol for the equation of time equals zero on page 260.
DeleteThe "Hooked X" is plain as day. The Double Cross is implied by the line made by two men's arms. Resembles the the inscription on the Overton Stone.
The "Superman Symbol" which, I believe represents the equation of time equals zero is also plainly visible.
Anthony Warren
Thanks for sharing your views about this, Scott. In my mind, I see the Church and the Crusaders as having been able to work together for almost two hundred years, before the fall-out caused by the King of France and a bad, hand-picked pope. I frankly don't see how the various Crusades could have been put together without the serious cooperation of these two entities working together.
DeleteI also don't think there was a "secret split" in the combined resources and infrastructure of the two, at least not financially, as relates to building and paying for vast armies.
I realize that you believe there was a secret agenda in the "higher ranks" of the Templars involving a Jesus bloodline and goddess deity worship, etc., but even if true, I don't see this as impacting the ability for these two entities to share most common non-religeous secrets necessary for fighting wars, including mapping upgrades and, at times, shared possession of treasury resources, as necessary for fighting wars.
All I'm saying, peacefully as usual, is that I don't think the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar were as split-apart as you might be inclined to believe--not for two hundred years. I don't see the animosity between the two that you see, up until the French King and his lacky pope behaved so evilly towards them.
But, anyway, I was hypothesizing about a much-earlier time than 1307, when--in my mind--the two entities would have been getting along amicably enough; I tend to see them as having been able to get along well enough to plant land-claims and treasure together, especially several generations before the Templars were disbanded. But, these are just my own speculations.
Thanks for allowing me to voice my views here about this most important matter concerning "lost and almost forgotten about" Templar treasure.
- Bob Voyles
Anthony, I have the Kindle version. What figures are you referencing?
DeleteMy bad. Page 220 NOT 230
DeleteFig. 5.11. David Teniers the Younger's painting St. Anthony and St. Paul
The "Hooked X" is made by the two crossed sticks and the white corner of the altar rock. As the leaning stick is pointing toward the skull, I'm thinking this is the winter solstice. Could the "Hooked X" be a symbol for the Megalithic Yard???
The "Hooked X" is turned into a double cross by the line of the 2 men's arms pointing toward the Raven.
Fig. 7.4. Albrecht Durer's Melancholia, 1514.
The Superman Symbol which, I think symbolizes the equation of time equals zero is present.
There's another element which connects both of these works. It's not relevant to the current discussion. If it happens to come up, I will elaborate.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteThe Hooked X with the sticks and the stone table jumped out at me immediately. That there is more going on in Tenier's painting is a given. In fact, If you haven't read William Mann's book, "Templar Sanctuaries in North America: Sacred Bloodlines and Secret Treasures", you should. He points out several symbolic features that tell an interesting Templar tale.
Scott,
DeleteFirst noticed this "Hooked X" just before, I became aware of your work. This is the third "Hooked X" I'd come across. The first found on a coin of unknown origin, and the second in Egyptian tomb art. I really appreciate work. You've helped immensely in putting this symbol into context.
I will have to get a copy of Mr. Mann's work ASAP. As well as a few other books.
Anthony Warren
Scott,
DeleteMaybe it's just me but, the side of the "table" making the "Hooked X" sure does look like the KRS. The play of light, and shadow gives the appearance of the KRS's rough line.
It's just missing the text.
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteYou know what? It kinda does look like the KRS and reminds me a lot of the stone slab in the Masonic glass slide on page 255 of my "Akhenaten" book. That stone has the same dimensions of the KRS and even has shading that perfectly matches the angle of the line of step cleavage on the face side of the stone.
They are probably coincidences, but then again...
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are being a first class jerk, first and foremost by not having the courtesy and integrity to use you real name. Secondly, by refusing to acknowledge the obvious, and constantly playing “gotcha” instead of having a respectful exchange. I stand behind my comment about Templar round church architecture and you are free to either accept it or dismiss as you wish.
“Man up?” Let’s start with you “manning up” by crawling out from the shadows instead of being a creepy troll.
You are also trying to put words in my mouth I didn’t say. Further, you are not going to get any answers until you properly identify yourself, change your attitude, and be more respectful of the subject matter. Until then, you’ll have to rely on radio interviews you obviously pay close attention to, to get answers to personal questions that are, frankly, none of your business.
Anonymous,
DeleteYou know the rules; no legitimate name, no comments posted.
@Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI had an interesting thought while going through physical therapy. I knew the traction machine I was connected to had its origins with Galen from the Roman Empire. Traction was used to help the Gladiators recuperate, and for recuperation after surgeries. Fast forward some 1200 years and you'll come across the torture rack. I've been told the Cathars had invented the torture rack. According to one professor, "The Catholics didn't take their torture technology with them. They used what they found on site...Therefore the Cathars invented the torture rack, and the Catholics merely used it against them." NOT SO FAST DOC! From what I understand, the Cathar Priestesses held ALL of the surgical knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Cathars were NOT torturing anyone. Dominc Guzman is then responsible for turning a medical device used for GOOD, into a weapon of torture and fear.
Remember...The only differencs between Roman surgical tools and modern surgery tools is age and metal of manufacture. Bronze as opposed to Steel. They were even removing cataracts.
The only difference between the traction machine I'm hooked to and one of ancient manufacture...Nylon rope instead of leather straps, and an electric motor instead of hand-cranked wheel.
Rock Chalk,
Anthony Warren
Anthony,
DeleteWhat professor said the Cathars practiced torture using a rack or any other device of torture? That makes no sense at all if you understand their ideological beliefs; tell that professor to cite a reliable source or stop saying something so ridiculous.
Good grief!
Scott,
DeleteHe's deceased, and I won't speak ill of the departed. He never cited a source. Claimed the Catholics found the torture rack while persecuting the Cathars. "The Cathars must have practiced torture. What else could the rack have been used for?" This was during a heated debate after class. I wish I'd known about Cathar surgical knowledge, and traction at that time.
The most interesting aspect of the Cathar practices, is how they separated their women into different classes. This not only points to a Leonardo DaVinci connection, it speaks to a larger breeding program. Bizarre to modern thought but, still fascinating to consider. Leo may have been the disciple of a Cathar Priestess.
Anthony Warren
Hello Scott, Let me qualify this by saying I know very little of the Knights Templar. I amhowever keenly interested in all things Roman and the Roman era.That said, after reading your thoughts here, I have a question for you.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe the Templars existed in some firm around the time of Jesus, what are your thoughts on Constantine being influenced by the Templars? He was the first Roman to use the Christian cross as a symbol on the shields of his soldiers and he also, in reality gave the Catholic Church all their power. Some interesting connections there. Could he have been some sort of Templar?
Yours:
Robert Johnson
Robert,
DeleteLet me start by saying I don't pretend to know what Constantine's personal beliefs or affiliations were. However, he was an intelligent man who presided over one of the most important events in history at the Council of Nicaea. Here's a pretty good link to learn more about it:http://www.equip.org/PDF/DN206.pdf
Scott,
ReplyDeleteLong time reader, first time writer.... I've been following your blog almost since the beginning. I'm very interested in your work. I've never written in before now because I've pretty much always found that my questions will be answered if I wait and follow long enough.
But, today I feel compelled to ask.... Lately, I've read a lot where you call people out for asking "gotcha" questions and for not leaving their real names. Why does this bother you so much? What exactly is a "gotcha" question? You're putting some pretty controversial theories out here in a public forum. It makes sense to me that you'd probably encounter a lot of resistance. Many people are going to ask you to support your ideas. It also makes sense to me that open minded people would want more information and would want their questions answered. If serious people can't rectify your theories with their own ideas, they should be able to ask questions in an effort to more complete their knowledge. It seems to me like lately questions you can't answer are written off as "gotcha". I believe this to be wrong on your part. If you can't answer a question, that's fine. Just tell people you don't know the answer. Nobody knows every answer. Also, I don't understand why you seem to demand people who disagree with you write in using their real names while people who do agree with you are often allowed to do so anonymously. What difference does it make if they're leaving a name or not? There's no way you can tell if they are using a real name or something they made up....which is even more cowardly than responding anonymously in my opinion.
In conclusion, keep the work coming. We all want to know more. But, don't take questions and push-back so personally.
Thanks,
TJ
TJ,
DeleteI have no problem with pushback from people, but I don’t think it’s asking too much that it be couched respectfully. A ‘gotcha’ question is an insincere one where the person asking already knows the answer and is simply trying to set me up to pounce at the first opportunity. It's classic troll behavior and not coincidentally, it’s usually someone who posts as "Anonymous."
In my view, it’s a matter of respect and integrity to put your real name behind your comments. You may disagree, but I think it matters. If a legitimate question or comment is offered as "Anonymous" I’m happy to post it and respond. However, you should see the hundreds of mean and nasty comments I don’t post and every last one of them are, you guessed it, as "Anonymous." When that happens you’ll often see me say something about the comment.
I don’t care if someone calls me an asshole, fraud or whatever; just have the decency and integrity put your name behind it instead of creeping from the basement.
The trolls are out this week Scott. I've noticed alot of the new history shows are all obsessed with LIdar. While I'll admit the 3d is cool looking it did not seem to bring any new mysteries/answers to light. What are your thoughts, and do you see any new technology changing the landscape soon? Thanks
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check out Scott's show America Unearthed.
DeleteRoderick
Bryan,
DeleteWe used Lidar a few times on the show and it worked really well to give 3-D imagery of the landscape; it worked especially well at Cahokia. As far as new technology, I'm not aware of anything ground-breaking except for below-grade imaging that worked well in helping discover large man-made spaces under the Great Pyramid of Giza. Who knows whats coming next, but I'm sure it'll be good!
IF I recall correctly, it was one space and above-grade, and it's 1960s technology but advances in computers may well have improved it. Still, not as portable as LIDAR.
DeleteRoderick
Scott,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about some of the carbon 14 dating that has been done on the mortar?
Jay
Jay,
DeleteThat's a really good question. The C-14 testing of the mortar in the Newport Tower is probably the most miss-understood aspect of trying to establish age for its construction. Many point to the colonial and post colonial age test results as evidence of more recent construction than the actual circa 1400 construction date. In fact, these test results actually are evidence that support older construction, but few understand why. Let me explain.
C-14 testing DOES NOT give a date of when the mortar was made, applied, and got hard. It gives the date when the mortar acquired carbon, as carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere at the time it carbonated. Carbonation is a chemical reaction between calcium hydroxide (lime) which is the primary ingredient of mortar along with sand, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or dissolved in water. This chemical reaction starts at the outermost surface of the mortar and progresses inward over time. The rate of carbonation is a function of the amount of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, the porosity of the mortar, and time.
The only mortar that could potentially yield a date close the original construction date of the Tower weathered off the exterior of the structure centuries ago. What's actually being tested is mortar from the interior portions of the tower that carbonated centuries after original construction yielding the later dates. In fact, on the west facing side of the columns on the west side I measured mortar that had eroded off between stones to a depth into the column up to 8 inches.
The bottom line is the C-14 test results generated to date are from mortar from withing the columns that carbonated centuries after original constructed. Unfortunately, the only mortar that could ever yield a reliable C-14 date close to the original construction weathered away centuries ago.
Don't listen to him Jay, the tower was originally coated with a smooth white plaster, some of which survives to this day. This demonstrates that there are places where the mortar survives fully intact.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI'm sure your knee jerk reaction was the reason you did not use your name. That being said, the Tower was originally plastered. However, that plaster has long weathered away and what survives is the repair plaster done at least two hundred years ago.
Thanks Scott,
DeleteI completely did not know that about carbon dating. As I think back, I understand now why I’ve seen dendrochronology used on exposed logs rather than carbon dating.
I’m not sure I see the person’s point about plaster. That seems irrelevant. Radiation suits would all be made out of gypsum if plaster was magically impervious to radiation.
Jay,
DeleteThat was a classic attempt at 'gotcha' and, as usual, they comment as "Anonymous." This person doesn't know and doesn't care about facts, just trying to sneak in a quick zinger. Sad...
Scott, what has always puzzle me is that the Danish team conducting the C-14 sampling drilled into the structure vice coring/boring into the structure to obtain a "powderized" sample that they collected into plastic vials. They blew out the drill hole between the changing out of different length drill bits. Some of the collected samples were rejected because they contained low percent volumes of testable mortar. In short, with the drill method, they were blind to the actual composition of material at the depth they wanted to collect the sample. I have to wonder why the didn't core a sample? For material testing of mortar/concrete, what is the best approach? Patrick
ReplyDeletePatrick,
DeleteDrilling a dust sample is the worst way to collect samples from mortar or concrete for testing. A core sample is far and away the best way as the material remains in context without the possibility of contamination from cuttings at a shallow depth getting mixed in with material from greater depths.
You can throw all the test results from the Danish team's work in the garbage as far as I'm concerned.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteZooming in on the picture, "church of Covenant of Christ in Tomar" to see the female. Keystone symbolism, which resembles in form the upside down white angel of Rosslyn Chapel, I noticed something else. What do you think about the Angel on the right hand side holding the Shroud of Turin?
The shroud is folded into a square, showing only the face. The opposing Angel on the left is either holding a circle, or a sphere. I can't tell for sure.
Anthony Warren
I should've explained more details. The stone I was referring to in the previous posting is red. Looks similar to a chess pawn, or a "Sorry" game piece hanging upside down. I've noticed this pattern in a few other structures related to the Templars. This is the first RED one, I've come across.
DeleteWhy do I mention this symbol?
This symbol seems to have a connection to China. There are many Earthworks around China which are called "keyholes". Because that's exactly what they look like at first glance. The keyhole for a skeleton key. Upon further inspection, one sees a combination of square/triangle/circle or cube/pyramid/sphere. This "keyhole" symbol has always been presented in the perspective to see a keyhole. Especially on the History Channel. What if this "keyhole" is meant to be viewed the other way, or upside down. Just like the RED and WHITE stones in Templar architecture. I may have come across a BLACK stone as well. Need to recall where. Again with the red, black, and white. I get the Kabbalah connection but, there seems to be more to it. Haven't quite put my finger on it...yet.
There are many examples of the black Madonna and the white Madonna...Has anyone seen a red Madonna???
Anthony Warren
Scott,
ReplyDeleteJust listened to your latest interview with Jimmy Church. Terrific. Y'all got so caught up on "Trading Places", you were about to elaborate on the rumor of the Sacagawea coin, but didn't get a chance. What is the significance?
cheers,
Steve
Steve,
DeleteI'll have the story in my new book I'm getting ready to release. Essentially, she is believed to be a direct descendant of a medieval Templar knight who assimilated with the Natives.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteSince you had to be a knight already to be a Templar knight, most Templars were support staff. Templar <> knight. How do you know she was a descendant of a knight?
Roderick
Roderick,
DeleteThe knights who came over to North America were no longer support staff as the structure of the order had changed. They had set out for a new life in a new land and why wouldn't they? Staying in Europe promised only further persecution from the monarchs and the Catholic Church. To say nothing about the plagues ravaging Europe at that time. Native Americans shared a similar ideology and lived in balance with their environment which was the way the Templars distant ancestors had lived. It makes perfect sense.
Scott, any chance you could answer Roderick's question ?
Delete" How do you know she was a descendant of a knight?"
Anonymous,
DeleteYou'll have to buy the new book to find out there. I know you understand.
Scott, you're assuming that which is to be proven. It sounds like you don't understand the Templar organizational structure and are still equating "Templar" with "knight". Now you've got them bringing plagues to Native Americans? Contrary to what you say it makes no sense at all.
ReplyDeleteRoderick
Roderick,
DeleteFirst, I understand the organizational structure of the medieval Templar order in Europe just fine. Second, they called themselves "Templar brethren" while operating over here. Third, where did I say the Templar's brought plague to North America? What I said was part of their motivation to leave Europe to stay here was to escape from the plague. Please read what I write a little more carefully.
Lastly, the case for Sacajawea hasn't been made yet, so please wait with patience.
Weeelll, I don't think you do understand the organizational structure of the Templars even before they were no more. Second, how would you know what they called themselves "while operating over here." Third, you didn't say Templars brought plague, but that they left a plague riddled region. Later invaders brought the smallpox and picked up the syphillis.
DeleteAs far as a Sackajawea goes, I only know what you said in the interview, no waiting with patience is out the window.
Roderick.
Roderick,
DeleteWeeelll, I think I do understand the 20:1 ratio of Templar brethren to knights and there's a reason I know what they called themselves over here, but like Anonymous, you'll have to continue to wait with patience to find out in the future book.
I stand behind what I said in the interview, but I'm afraid you'll have to learn patience to get the answers you seek. Not trying to be snarky, but my goal was to generate interest and I seem to have been successful. It's called promotion.
Doesn't the fact that the Blackfoot were never in, and never migrated to Alberta (Writing on Stone) or Montana until the latter half of the 18th century kind of blow your theory out of the water ?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteConsider this your last warning posting without identifying yourself in this thread.
This is really a silly comment. How in the Hell does anyone other than the indigenous people living there at that time, let alone you, know anything about the migration of Western Plains Indians around 1700? Academia today hasn't a clue and neither do you. Apparently, you are saying there were no Native Americans in what is now Montana until the 18th Century? Keep in mind, the names white people gave Native American tribes isn’t necessarily how they identified themselves. The tradition of guarding the Secret Vault have been passed down through the centuries and continues to this day. This is what native elders have told me and others like William Mann, who is half Ojibwa himself. You don’t have to believe it, but spare us all some false historical narrative you’re trying to push as your attempt at “gotcha” for today?
Thanks
Scott, I just have to +1 your reply to this idiot.
DeleteS/he is assuming they had to arrive there. What evidence is there that they were located somewhere else at that time?
Sound logic would dictate the safe assumption that both their claims of origin and historic evidence are correct.
Yeah it was just a dumb gotcha comment, but this one was so bad it made me laugh. :)
Jay
Jay,
DeleteThis is likely the same anonymous who takes a contrary position about anything I write. That's fine, but at least present an argument with some validity. Prior to 1700 there were no white people on the plains accurately documenting Native American culture. They were "savages" right? There is only one way to learn anything about native culture prior to that time and it is from natives themselves who up until very recently wouldn't waste their time with any white researchers who were too busy digging up their burial mounds trying to sanitize anything that might divert from the narrative we are still trying fix. There were a few who made early detailed observations like George Catlin, but that's about all.
As Bill Mann will tell you, the information about the Secret Vault came from the natives themselves. Given a choice between "Anonymous" and the indigenous people about their own history, I know where my money is going...
Scott,
DeleteI think the argument would go something like this: accepting your statement that "Prior to 1700 there were no white people on the plains accurately documenting Native American culture" when whites did arrive, the Blackfoot were not there yet, then later they were. Similar to the way there weren't always Cherokee in Oklahoma; of course in that case we know the when the why and the how.
Roderick
Roderick,
DeleteIf you and "Anonymous" can provide support for your claim, then do it. No this is not the same thing as the Western Band of Cherokee and the "Trail of Tears." Not even a little bit. If you can not provide evidence to refute native oral tradition, then I'll stick with native oral tradition thanks.
" If you can not provide evidence to refute native oral tradition, then I'll stick with native oral tradition thanks."
DeleteYou haven't even told us what it is you want us to refute !!!
Who is your source or sources ? Secret sources you can't name lol ?
You want us to refute something that you won't even tell us what it is ? Are you for real ?
Tell us what these oral traditions say, and who specifically said them.
All you are saying is "I know something you don't, and you can't prove it wrong!"
Just as I thought… My suggestion is for you to wait until the new book comes out and we can save this discussion for when you are armed with more facts to try and refute.
DeleteWait with patience…
Incidentally, Anonymous accused me of copying Newton Winchell's work on the Kensington Rune Stone. The truth is I was unaware of Winchell's geological work when I did my initial examination and report. It turns out I independently, replicated his weathering work, although he did not use dated tombstones like I did. It was similar, not the same. In any case, two geologists who reached the same conclusion. That is how the scientific method works.
The Kensington Rune Stone is an authentic mid-14th Century artifact no matter how much you don't want to believe it.
Scott, I can't find your report anywhere. Can you give me a link ? I'm sure if what you say is true and your report can bear up to scrutiny as you seem to think, there should be no reason not to make it public.
DeleteCan you please identify yourself to ensure your comments are posted? Yes it matters; thanks,
DeleteWhat report? If you're talking about my work on the Kensington Rune Stone I did multiple stand alone reports which are all incorporated into "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence."
The stand alone report have also been published or are you talking about something else?
Scott, yes, the report you mentioned in your comment directly before mine. Your first report that you were hired to do.
DeleteCan you direct me to an online version of that please and thank you.
M
"M" isn't a real name,
DeleteHere is what I consider to be the best most complete version of my peer reviewed report. You'll have to buy the book, but you can get signed copies if you purchase it here: www.hookedx.com
You can also inquire with the Runestone Museum in Alexandria if interested in a copy of my original report they paid me to perform.
Scott, no thanks on the book, I was kind of hoping to read the actual report, not a "version". Why is this not public ? Are there parts that no one is supposed to see ?
DeleteAnyway, failing that, could you direct me to a link for the peer reviews at least ? Thanks.
M
You are now entering into “Troll Territory” by continuing to portray yourself as someone making a serious inquiry, yet refuse to show any respect the readers who comment and do identify themselves, the subject matter, and me, by hiding in the shadows. This is your final warning.
DeleteThe Runestone Museum was my client who paid for the investigation and thus the report belongs to them. That is why I suggested you contact them for a copy of the original report. The book contains everything that was in that report and more, so you’ll have to either go the library to read it or buy one.
I have previously discussed the eight peer reviews of my geological work on this blog. I only disseminate the reviews to serious inquiries by qualified individuals. I’m sure you can appreciate my not wanting to waste my time with amateurs and “fringe” geologist more interested in playing “gotcha” than serious inquiry.
You can read Henrik Williams review of runes and language on the Kensington Rune Stone at the following link: https://s3uswest2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Henrik+Williams.pdf
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThere are two more "Hooked X's" you may not be aware of. My time left may be short, I'd like to share. For ease, I'll use figures from books, I know you own, or are at least familiar with.
"Templar Meridians" William Mann, page 55. Fig.1.19 The Illustration La Fontaine re fortune from Rene d'Anjou's Couer d'amours espris.
Look at the tree branches above the person on the right hand side. The "Hooked X" is cleverly hidden in plain sight. Notice too the pattern of the green leaves to the left of the "Hooked X". It's part of a five pointed star. This same star is made by leaves again in Fig. 3.7 Poussin's 1640-42 version of Et in Arcadia Ego. Interstingly, this star fits within the circle added by Mr. Mann, overlaying the compass and square. Now you might notice the arch. Hint: the Pinnacle of the Star is the Keystone.
SAME BOOK Page 123
Fig. 3.6. The 1629 version of Nicolas Poussin's Et in Arcadia Ego ( also known as The Shepherd's of Arcadia)
Not as apparent but, it's there. Two Shepherds have their staffs crossed and the tree trunk creates the hook.
Now for the play on words...
POUSSIN BOOTES
Anthony Warren
ANthony,
DeleteSorry for the late reply. I looked at both images and while I kind of see what you're talking about I think they are a stretch. I like that you're thinking outside the box though and you are certainly right these artist were deeply initiated.
Scott,
DeleteNo need to apologize. It's your Blog. Besides, I'm not a sycophant fanboy waiting for a pat on the back. I'm just appreciative of the opportunity to explain what I see.
I believe high-level communications were taking place using art instead of written letters. I half agree with the "stretch". The "Hooked X" in the Poussin painting is only half there. It's more of a Hooked V. It's like the symbol is being quickly flashed, like the first part of a complicated handshake.
The "Hooked X" in the Renee Anjou work is most definitely there. Actually, there's quite a bit going on in those branches. The "Hooked X" is clearly visible in the facsimile provided by Mr. Mann.
I'd like to figure out whom was communicating with, in order to figure out which paintings were the responses.
The "Hooked X" is one common element which appears to tie these works together. In my opinion, there are more artworks to be found. So far, we've only been privy to one side of the conversation.
BTW- The "Hooked X" you've shown to exist within Rosslyn Chapel is also a Hooked Lambda Chi Alpha.
Anthony Warren
Scott,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to thank you for the little clues you've dropped here and there. I now know and understand the importance of 45 degree latitude for astronomical observations. I really appreciate the tidbit about the symbol used by the Templars to denote an eclipse. I've seen more than one artwork with two parallel bars over the Sun.
Have you paid any attention to the facial hair of some of the men involved? Maybe it's just me...I've come across several examples of men with a mustache and a circular tuft of hair just below the bottom lip. Often the mustache is slicked to form a Chevron. Essentially the same symbol found on every pack of Marlborough cigarettes, and above an important tomb,
Anthony Warren
The Marlboro man had reddish hair like a Scottish guy and was real big like a knight had to be to weild a battleaxe or a broadsword. I bet that symbol on the packs of Marlboro smokes are found to be marking treasure caves too and not just tombs. If they aren't not there you can be sure there will be a big mark in the rock where they gowged out the mark to hide the evidence of the knights being there.
DeleteAnthony,
DeleteWhile the chevron-circle symbolism above the entrance to the Talpiot tomb is rather commonly found in architecture, it is especially prominent in churches, cathedrals, monasteries, especially Catholic religious houses. For me, this could be the Roman Catholic Church once again hijacking older symbolism and making it their own.
As we've seen countless times, so many of these esoteric symbols have crept their way into everyday places by artists who pass on the ancient knowledge through their art and architecture.
The beauty of embedding these important symbols is they can always claim plausible deniability.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteSwinging back to the aerial photos of Touro Park…the called-out feature is absolutely real. While aerial photos is remote-sensing, the feature presents in the earliest photos and persists up to today. Additionally, in 2003 the third GPR study of the park identified and 18’X20’ anomaly in the area due east of the tower: “The second feature looks to be a solid rectangle measuring 18 X 20 ft., perhaps outlining an old foundation, ranging in depth from 1.5-3.5 ft” (p. 23). The report (http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/tower_project_report_2007.pdf) goes on: “The focus of the second archeological effort will be on an apparent rectangular feature east of the tower, about 18 X 20 ft., detected by GPR at a depth of 1.5 to 3.5 ft. Will it prove to be the remains of an ancient foundation from a previously unreported and unknown structure? Or will there be other explanations? Additionally, the group hopes to examine a cluster of east-west oriented anomalies at a depth of around 4.0 ft., also detected by GPR.” Aerial photography shows the feature, GPR shows the feature, and the subsequent 2007 dig revealed a foundation layer of stones in the four to five excavation grid squares that were opened up at the extreme eastern end of the rectangle (see 2014 Google Earth aerial photo). The team did a great job in orienting the grid so that it would intercept the outside line of the rectangle – whose outline may also be seen on the 2014 aerial photo. THEY WERE ON IT in the 2007 dig. Then the season ended, money ran out and the story is that folks didn’t get paid, and here we are over ten years later still having to argue with Arborist Jim about features ALREADY PROVEN TO EXIST by science.
what you think is the purpose of building the churches like this, i think they build to have the best resonance of a tone from an instrument or singing. to open there mind or maybe a portal in stone.
ReplyDeleteUnknown,
DeleteMedieval and modern churches, cathedrals, etc., are all designed to enhance acoustic qualities of sound and certainly music. I suspect the Newport Tower also took into consideration sound. However, it's primary function was astronomy.
Hello Scott,
ReplyDeleteI have not been able to access my email. Not sure why. This is directed towards Patrick Shekelton, and anyone following his links.
The picture "Newport Tower 23 December 2018 Sunset" taken at 14:44 in the afternoon...There is a pointer on the column on the right side. On, and above this "pointer" are symbols. The symbols above the "pointer" appear to be numbers. Not enough resolution to tell for sure what the symbols on the "pointer" are.
This appears to be the same side of the Tower shown in this blog post. The side showing the "Red Orb". The "pointer" is near the top of the column to the right of the Red Orb. If this is the numbers you have already identified, I apologize. The pointer reminds me of "The Price is Right" wheel spin, without the wheel. There are definitely symbols there!
Anthony Warren
Hello Scott,
ReplyDeleteWell...We may have a game changer. Until recently reading Patrick Shekelton's posts, I was unaware of any inscriptions on the NT. Therefore, I have always thought, I was seeing something not actually there. Being unaware of Pentadic numbers, I did not realize what, I was actually catching glimpses of, in various photos. My knowledge was limited to 4 sticks and angled crossbar, denoting units of five. This is all my public education taught me, regarding Pentadic/Runic numbers.
Fast forward from 1st grade to Scott Wolter publishing his work on the KRS which, I had read about, but, never any accompanying pictures. Scott shows Pentadic numbers on the KRS. This is when, I first learn of the NRS, and the SPRS. I had never heard of either. Saw the NRS. Impressive! SPRS not so easy to find.
Enter Patrick Shekelton. To make a long story short, began to sporadically follow Patrick's work. Learned more about the SPRS, Pentadic numbers, and a picture of a NT inscription dating back to 1946! Then, out of the blue, I come across a picture of the NT recrntly posted by Patrick. I was ASTONISHED!
There, almost plain as day, Pentadic numbers. RUNIC NUMBERS!!! In one of the same spots, I suspected of containing symbols. Until my recent Pentadic numbers lesson from Patrick, I had no clue as to what, I was seeing. If, I had seen the SPRS sooner, or had a better public education regarding Pentadic numbers, I would have spoke up years ago. Some folks already considered me crazy, and as often as, I found myself being quoted on another site, often out of context, I didn't want to provide fodder for them without proof.
I have now seen proof. I am 100% confident, once new, targeted photos are taken, some people will be eating over 650 years of Crow. Some "academics" could turn this into a competitive eating contest!
The Newport Tower has Pentadic/Runic Number Inscriptions!
I didn't know Benedict Arnold used obsolete numbers systems!
Anthony Warren
CONGRATULATIONS, Scott!!!
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Hate Blog Mafia, AU is coming back! GOOD JOB! Might consider getting Cable again. Either way, I will watch. Way to get under their skin!
I have noticed an increase in old hoax claims being posted. Several regarding a world renown...cough...cough..."Runic Expert" allegedly debunking two Pentadic representations of 10. Taken as a date. A major increase since, posting to your blog about Pentadic numbers on the NT. I guess...They think, I have pointed out old, and already known inscriptions.
Just to let EVERYONE know, this is NEW stuff. I am LOVING, watching certain people talk themselves into deeper holes, without even knowing it.
Patrick Shekelton is not bluffing. He was already holding 4 Aces. Now he has drawn the Wild Card.
With the utmost respect,
Anthony Warren