Richard Stanbery

I never really paid that much attention to the Newport tower, to be honest about it. Whether it is pre-Columbian or not, it could only have one explainable function, as far as I can fathom, and that as a navigation point ( if it isnt just a windmill).

As a navigation point for pre-Columbian journeys, it reaaly isnt old enough to be ground breaking for me, as the Templar times are far too recent to be really interesting. I think a growing body of historians are accepting the idea that there were some people in the Old World that knew about America in the times before Columbus. The idea of the Templars comming here in the 1300s is, well, (yawn) not that exciting.

I think of more interest is the standing stones, the Phoenecian things, and that sort of line of research. If anybody from the pre-Columbian times may have had the most realistic chance of actually being the first, I would ascribe it to the Phoenecians.

Hamilcar being the current focus of attention. Though most of his records seem to have been sterilized from history, we do know that he set out on a voyage of discovery at the same time that Hanno the Navigator was exploring African waters. Hamilcar took the Northern route from Spain, and supposedly explored European waters. But I do seem to remember a fragment from one of the ancient historians that give the slightest clue that Hamilcar sailed on a voyage of 4 months outside of the straits of Heracles and made a landfall. I can think of no European place from Spain that takes 4 months to get to from there. Certainly not Britain. And for exploration of European places, a simple coasting voyage will do.

So, where exactly did Hamilcar go that took 4 months to make landfall?

Help is appreciated in this. Someone come and prove me wrong so that I can learn!

(I might just let that be my ephitat).

Lynn Brant

I appear to have found this forum and thread a couple months late, but better late than never. I notice there was never a link posted to my Newport Tower site, so here it is: www.newporttower.org

There you will find a rather thorough refutation of the claim that the Chesterton Mill is an antecedent to the Newport Tower. There are many structures in the world that share the superficial characteristic of pillar and arch. Scratch that surface, though, and you will find the Chesterton has nothing in common with the NT. I invite you to visit the site, read it all especially the conclusion, and come back here to refute any of those points if you can.

By the way, there has been a very recent historic breakthrough on the Kensington Rune Stone. A new microscopic 3D study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the dot in the R rune is man-made. Since that rune was not known to exist even by Scandinavian scholars until 1938, and the stone was found in 1898, there is no way it can be a forgery. Swedish runologist Henrik Williams said last October, "If the dot in the R is man-made, the KRS is a genuine medieval artifact." This info and more is on the still under development website www.kensingtonrunestone.us

davu

thanks for posting -- Lynn -- i do hope this expands the conversations regarding these subjects -- i have mentioned to scott about this but i am sure his schedule dictates his time allocation to the newport tower website and his own

davu

for those who are so inclined -- this forum is about the KS and Newport tower

http://newporttower.org/Forums/index.php

davu

also for those so inclined --- enjoy --- much updated mathematics

Newport Tower - Mystery Solved

Nego

They misspelt 'cannibalism' badly. Otherwise, interesting stuff.

Lynn Brant

I find one site to be pretty much factual and science-based, while the other is a journey into arcane speculation with no supportive evidence.

Richard Stanbery

Well, I dont think the Newport tower was supposed to be a monolith to last for hundreds of years. The fact that it did was probably an accident. I think the purpose of the Newport tower was one of immediate utility.

But it might be worth an interest in some archeo digs of the surrounding area. Somebody might have been pre-contructing some infastructure for a planned colony. A small one, with a closed community, such as an abbey?

Lynn Brant

I think the best evidence is that the tower was constructed as a combination church and astronomical observatory. I doubt it was the center of a settlement, more of an outpost. It is to be expected that nothing has been found in the immediate proximity of the tower since it was a religious site and kept cleansed. Such sites are known as archaeologically sterile. There have not been any digs further out because for centuries the area has been homes and churches. If someone could acquire all the land within a 200 yard radius and thoroughly explore it all I would bet artifacts would be found. But of course, that will never happen.

Richard Stanbery

Yes, you are probably right.

But perhaps the owners might allow a non-intrusive survey> Such as a geo-phys scan?

davu

is there any public records that the rhode island gov'ts have released -- didn't i read someplace, they had information all along but never released ---