The Kensington Runestone

Jul 2018
there will always be those days when a person just has to laugh ....


Maps that turn world history upside down

page 16 (figure #17) is an uproar ...... cheers --- the Chinese knew and mapped Spain in 1430 A.D. --- SO HOW MANY OF YOU still have your Gavin Menzies book .... I'd order a new one before the price goes through the roof.....collectors item

first two paragraphs of page 17 explains why ..... this puts the timetable right in the middle of the "Zheng He's exploration...

and don't miss the "conclusion" -- this is going to really really hurt.
Jul 2018
for those interested in the "construction" of the grist mill....

Phippsburg History Center
February 24 at 6:44 PM ·
SE and W Eyebrow Windows
Upper Level Niches (N9, N8, N6, & N5)
North (W4) & “Dubhe” (W5) Windows
The Schema
The issue with doing the highly technical, drill-down slides of lightbox and spotlight movements, is that folks lose sight of the BIG PICTURE. I know this happens…because it happens to me, as well…and I have been working day in and day out on the NT for about three years at this point in time.
So, let’s pull back and look at the BIG PICTURE.
If you believe the NT was originally built as a windmill…you can make your escape right now. If not, you have to suffer through this stuff. To prove that it is something different than a windmill, we have to show that the lightbox and spotlight illuminations are sequenced according to a distinct pattern of time. To reveal that we have to drill-down, then come up for air, then drill down again, and so on and so forth.
We are focused ONLY on spotlight illuminations in this slide. The spotlight illuminations are created by the SE and W Eyebrow Windows. These spotlight illuminations, primarily, create intersections between the Eyebrow Windows themselves, into the North, “Dubhe”, and East Windows, and then into the upper level niches (N9, N8, N6, & N5).
The main, lower-level windows (East (W1), South (W2), and West (W3)) generate LIGHTBOXES. The lightboxes never rise high enough (vertically) on the interior of the structure to intersect the upper-level niches (N9, N8, N6, & N5), the North (W4) or “Dubhe” (W5) Wndow(s).
Gks 1812, 4to Icelandic Manuscript
-360° / 2.727272 (Megalithic Yard, MY) = 132°. We have talked about this already.
Due North (0°) + 132° = 132°
SE EB Window Azimuth: 131.471° to 135.644°. We have a 132° spacing.
SE EB Window Azimuth: 131.471° to 135.644°.
W EB Window Azimuth: 258.409° to 262.479°.
131.471° + 132° = 263.471°.
We have a separation of 131. 008° vice 132.000°. This is a Δ of 0.992°.
873.5” Exterior Circumference / 360° = 2.43” per 1°.
Our Δ of 0.992° is equal to an offset of 2.41”.
The 0.992° mismatch is within the long-stated +/- 1° acceptable tolerance for the physical measures on the structure.
Due South (180°) + 132° = 312°
This is the northern end of Niche 5.…/a.11495577858…/2052589374817255/…
312° + 132° = 444°
444° - 360° = 84°
Where is 84°?
On the exterior of the structure, it is the south edge of the “2nd Quartz Rock, NE Quadrant.”
-East Window (W1), North Edge: 61.872°
-East Window (W1), South Edge, Inside Bevel: 70.733°
-East Window (W1), South Edge: 73.309°
-Fireplace Flue, Northerly, North Edge: 76.915°
-Fireplace Flue, Northerly, South Edge: 80.521°
-2nd Quartz Rock, NE Quadrant, North Edge: 79.078°
-2nd Quartz Rock, NE Quadrant, South Edge: 84.539°
Let’s use the SUN’S AZIMUTH tell us where 84° is at on the INTERIOR of the structure. We have to use back-course azimuth to do this, so we add 180° to 84° to get the final value of 264°.
We have a picture of the SUN being at this azimuth on 11 March 2018:…/a.73143418026…/1602259409850256/…
It is right there in the FIREPLACE.
Jul 2018

post two of the above

Turning to the slide…first of all…this photo is a composite graphic of multiple photos that Jim Egan took and pieced together. Jim gets the photo credit.

The unfortunate thing about the composite photo is that a little bit of the northwest quadrant is missing. This would be a section between Pillar 8 and Pillar 1.

Anyways…note that Niche 9/8/6/5 are all at the same level in the structure. This infers that they have a similar function. This notion is further strengthened by the Niche 9 to Niche 8 spacing – it is exactly the same as the Niche 6 to Niche 5 spacing.
[Oops...on the original posting I left out part of the narrative...]

Two groups of niches, both at the same vertical level and both with similar spacing internal to each group. The west interior group of niches (N9 & N8) are illuminated when the sun is on the sunrise-side- of-the-house. The east interior group of niches (N6 & N5) are illuminated when the sun is on the sunset-side-of-the-house.
The two groups of upper-level niches are interesting. For me, it is about illuminations and timing. For others, they look at the N9/N8 and N6/N5 features as openings to hold the beams that supported the second floor of the structure (ground, first, second).

In this sense, the groupings make sense. All of them are positioned above pillars. This allows for a good load transfer down to the sub-pinning of the structure via the pillars. It would have been unwise to have this load positioned over an arch between the pillars.

The beam configuration would have been P3/N9 to P8/N5 and then P4/N8 to P7/N6.

Seems good, but for one thing – the P3/N9 beam is positioned directly above the fireplace (26.125” vertical separation). Who places a primary structural member anywhere in proximity to a fireplace? Someone who is not thinking, that is who. It wasn’t that the beam was going to ignite, it was the thermal heating from the fireplace that would rise up into that area and cause the beam to rapidly dry out. This would cause serious, and unwanted, cracking in the beam. Excessive cracking weakens timber.

It wasn’t as though the only option for the second-floor beam was the P3/N9 configuration that we see. They could have used a P6:p1/P5:p2 or a P4:p1/P5:p8 arrangement that would have moved the second- floor beams completely away from the fireplace.
This would have also simplified the double flue arrangement of the fireplace, something that was required due to Niche 9 being positioned directly above the fireplace.

I have no issue with a fireplace being in a grist mill. The arguments that it was a fire hazard are not reasonable – we aren’t talking about high-speed milling that creates a large amount of suspended dust. I will note that the NT is the first (purported) grist mill in North America or England that was historically equipped with a fireplace.

The question becomes “Why did the builders of the NT needlessly complicate the structure by placing one of the second-floor beams in the P3/N9 position, which then drove the need for a double flue fireplace?” We can only surmise at a possible answer, but even so, it is clear that the builders choose a configuration which both complicated the structure and would likely result in structural weakening of the wooden beam due to repeated exposure to thermal heating from the fireplace air exchange.

-Top of Beam Sockets (1st Floor) to Bottom of Niche 9, 103.125” (8.59’)
-Top of Beam Sockets (1st Floor) to Top of Niche 9, 123.75” (10.31’)
-Top of Fireplace to Bottom of Niche 9, 26.125” (2.18’)
-Top of Fireplace to Top of Niche 9, 44.0” (3.67’)
There is NO evidence of fire-cracking in the fireplace rocks (bottom, sides, tip, entry to the flues). The flues have a minimal coating of soot inside of them (and only in the first six inches of travel). By minimal, I would say perhaps one or two fires at most…as if someone wanted to see if the double flues actually pulled the smoke up and out of the enclosure. There is no sooting in the flues once you get beyond the first six inches of travel. THE FIREPLACE WAS NOT USED.

Why? Because it was never intended to be used. It is the LIGHT coming through the West Window which is the “fire”. That was the design.

Last edited:
Jul 2018
Here we are again, ranting on about the maps. The good news is we have "REAL NAVIGATORS" doing analysis on the maps, understanding Ptolemy Navigation and the use of it in the Medieval Period and BEFORE. That being said, we have come to the nasty conclusion that the "historians' responsible for writing the pre-Columbus history of the Americas' were completely out of their league. I attribute this to "arrogance". I also attribute this to the thinking that archaeologists, historians and anthropologists demanded and got the right to have the final word on EVERYTHING to do with "history". Physical sciences were treated as "second rate". Thus we had the "Clovis Barrier" fiasco that turned into the laughing stock of Friday night drinks (yes, there was a meteor or comet and it was huge). It also wiped out my favorite puppy dog - the Dire Wolf. At just a mire 150 to 175 lbs (males), it would have been a sight to see as they ripped apart their prey.......

Today, we have this...enjoy
Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · 1 hr ·

History Tells Us It Existed

There was only one question that historians, cartographers, and academics had to ask regarding Claudius Clavus’s First Map of the North (Nancy Map) and its associated Vienna and Nancy Text geographic coordinate sets.

Where was the ZERO POINT of the longitude unit scale?

EVERYONE…and I do mean EVERYONE…knew that the westernmost point on Greenland, the AFF PROMONTORIUM, was assigned the longitude unit scale of 9°15’.

Why didn’t anyone in the eleven decades since Bjornbo & Petersen published their work on Clavus, a work that included three codexes of coordinates, decide to figure out where the ZERO POINT longitude unit scale was at, geodetically?

It really is that simple.

Clavus’s ZERO POINT longitude sits at approximately 60° WEST using Greenwich as the reference Prime Meridian. If one uses Alexandria, Egypt as the reference Prime Meridian, the 60°W (Greenwich) becomes 90°W Alexandria.

Columbus BELIEVED that the land mass off to the WEST of Europe was ASIA. That is what folks had believed for over a thousand years at that point in time. Columbus KNEW that the distances were cooked – not by him – but by Toscanelli, inadvertently. Columbus wrote of the disparity of longitude when he went on his ca. 1470 decade trip up to Thule, and then beyond. Columbus wasn’t going to let the cat out of the bag…portraying the distance as being shorter than it actually was meant he was more likely to receive funding for the exploration that he wanted to do, and did in 1492.

Toscanelli didn’t understand the longitude unit scale convention that Clavus used. This resulted in Toscanelli shrinking the distance from Europe to the landmass off to the WEST…which was understood to be the northern part of China in the higher latitudes and then India once one got to the lower latitudes – latitudes that correlated to the ACTUAL LATITUDES of India over in the Indian Ocean.

The story of the discovery of America pre-dates Columbus. Columbus got his information from Toscanelli, who in turn developed his distance measurements and MAP from the geographic coordinates of the Vienna and Nancy Texts – from Clavus.

And Clavus’s ZERO POINT was the Newfoundland-Nova Scotia Prime Meridian.

In the early 16th century a gentleman by the name of Alessandro Zorzi obtained correspondence of Columbus’s voyage to North America. Zorzi, a Venetian, deconstructed the information in these letters and constructed maps in the margin of his manuscript. These maps offer an insight into the cartographical and navigational knowledge of Christopher Columbus. Next up: Zorzi’s 1523 Map.

Alessandro Zorzi’s sketch maps (text)
Luis A. Robles Macías.
Presentation at the Brussels Circle Map Afternoon (MAPAF) 2017. Royal Library, Brussels. 22 April 2017.

Bjornbo, A. A., and C.S. Petersen. Fyenboen Claudius Claussøn Swart (Claudius Clavus), Nordens ældste kartograf. Copenhagen, DM: Det kongelige danske Videnskabers Skrifter, 1904.
Retrieved June 2016

Bjornbo, A. A., and C.S. Petersen. Der Dane Claudius Claussen Swart (Claudius Clavus) : der alteste Kartograph des Nordens, der erste Ptolemausepigon der Renaissance. Innsbruck: Verlg der Wagner’schen Universitats Buchhandlung, 1909. Retrieved June 2016

Nunn, George Emra, and Cristoforo Colombo. 1924. The geographical Conceptions of Columbus. New York: Amer. Geogr. Soc. Retrieved March 2019

Skalholt Map, Folio 9 verso (1606 date on emblem)
360°/0° on the Newfoundland-Nova Scotia Prime Meridian

Skalholt Map, Folio 10 verso (1579 date on emblem; 1570 stated; historians judge to be 1590)
315° longitude runs down through PROMOTORIUM WINLANDIA

Skalholt Map, Folio 12 recto
The WEST side of FRISLANDIA is now situated astride the 360°/0° longitude meridian. What is Frislandia? It is NEWFOUNDLAND sitting just off the NF-NS PM to the EAST. On this map, the Prime Meridian (hence, the 360°/0° longitude) has been adjusted to the Azore’s Prime Meridian (the one used in 1569 by Mercator). And since the position of Frislandia on this Skalholt folio matches the physical positioning (relative to Greenland) of Frisland on the 1558 Zeno Map, we can deduce that Frisland was NEWFOUNDLAND.

Jul 2018
the beat goes on......and on and on......

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 4 ·

The Templars used the Christogram X for Christo on a coin they produced in 1214 CE. It is interesting to see that they used the X symbol for their coinage.

Four years ago (for me), the Hooked X symbol found on the KRS & SPR were used as data points in asserting that the rune stones were hoaxes...that someone INVENTED that Hooked X symbol...because it couldn't be found in the European runic corpus.

Here was the math:
(Not a valid runic character in Europe) + (Found only on North American rune stones) = HOAX.

We have demonstrated that Hooked X forms could be found in alphabet lists, on maps, and within dozens of Medieval Era manuscripts scattered throughout the REST OF EUROPE.

Will there ever be a runologist who admits that the Hooked X symbol is absolutely a legitimate, LATIN-origin symbol found within a runic inscription?

I don't believe we will ever hear that in our lifetime.

For 120 years the Scandinavian runologists have held the line on NOT admitting the Hooked X is a perfectly LEGITIMATE Latin symbol for a Medieval Era runic inscription.

Charalambous, Demetrio A. 1995. Descubrimiento en el mar de papel: el mapa americano del Rey Salomón. Buenos Aires: Edición del autor.

Jul 2018
#2 for this cheery Monday AM..enjoy

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 2 ·

Ca. 1538 (map has 1522 & 1523 dates written)

Zorzi was a Venetian geographer. His manuscripts contain correspondence about explorations and then he (Zorzi) would construct sketch maps of what was written. This particular sketch map includes details of North America, the placement of the Line of Demarcation from the Treaty of Tordesillas, and a longitude scale that illustrates the Line of Demarcation was 45 degrees to the WEST of the Fortunate Isles (Canary Islands) Prime Meridian. In short, Zorzi's sketch map historically illustrates the positioning of the Newfoundland-Nova Scotia Prime Meridian 90 degrees WEST of Alexandria, Egypt.

The map is oriented with SOUTH at the top; WEST is to the right.

Source (scanned map):
Charalambous, Demetrio A. 1995. Descubrimiento en el mar de papel: el mapa americano del Rey Salomón. Buenos Aires: Edición del autor.

Jul 2018
back again today...much exciting news, maps and pics....for all to see. its always been there...

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 10 ·

Is that the Newport Tower?
Or is it a Windmill?

Or, all they one and the same? Just before turning in last night, I received an IM from a friend who had just looked at the 1639 John Daniel Map posting. She chided me a bit for speculating that the notation on the map represented the Newport Tower. She wrote: “It shows a windmill near the water, not at all like the NPT.”


I think that she is correct, the illustration does appear to be the symbolic representation of windmill. The clearly visible X pattern denotes the sails. Keep in mind that, at this point, we are only working from a black and white scanned image of a colored plate found in Stokes’ book. The image in the book is on a color plate so there very well could be more definition to what we are looking at. There may very well be some structures located adjacent to the windmill (as can be seen on the slide).

The 1639 map of John Daniel illustrates a 900+ mile swath of the Atlantic Seaboard. What would compel Daniel to illustrate a WINDMILL in Narragansett Bay? Because he saw a circular tower during his ca. 1610 survey for the Velasco Map.
Daniels saw what others, later, (1634) described as OLD Plymouth, an abandoned English plantation/habitation at the southern end of Aquidneck Island.

They saw the Newport Tower. The assumption was that its purpose was that of a wind-powered grist mill, hence the windmill depiction on the 1639 map.
The Colonial settling of Rhode Island began in June 1636 when a group of religious outcasts, led by Roger Williams, established Providence, RI. In March 1638, some members of the party, along with others, established a settlement (Portsmouth) at the northern end of Aquidneck Island.

The Town of Newport was not established until the following year, 1639.
The CONVENTIONAL WISDOM of the Arnold Theory on the construction of the NT has timeline issues.
The CONVENTIONAL WISDOM of the Colonist Theory on the construction of the NT has timeline issues.

The illustration of the WINDMILL on the 1639 John Daniel Map within NARRAGANSETT BAY is evidence of the NT being constructed prior to 1639. A windmill has to be elevated – that is what a TOWER does.

The William Wood (1629-1633, published 1634) and John Josselyn (1638; 1663-1671, published 1674) accounts are contemporaneous with the 1610 Velasco Map (asserted to be compiled by John Daniel and the section north of Long Island into Narragansett Bay personally surveyed by Daniel).

OLD Plymouth WAS Newport. There were structures there that indicated a plantation/settlement once existed. One structure was the Newport Tower, deduced to be the remnant of a stone mill.

There are NO surviving records, written or graphical, that describe the construction of the Newport Tower. There are NO oral accounts from any Colonial settler of the construction of the Newport Tower.
How exactly did it come to pass that the 1610 Velasco Map, the 1634 William Wood Map, the 1639 John Daniel Map, and the John Josselyn narrative published in 1674 were never thoroughly analyzed?

Resultingly, the connection that OLD Plymouth was Newport…and the windmill was the Newport Tower…seemed to be more of a “fringe history” fantasy wish than what it actually was – solid evidence that the Newport Tower pre-dates the 1639 establishment of Newport.

Which means that it wasn’t a COLONIAL constructed artifact
St. Georges Fort plan, Phippsburg, 1607

Stokes, Isaac Newton Phelps. The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909, Vol II. New York: Robert H. Dodd, 1915. Retrieved February 2019
-John Daniel (1636) on p. 274 of 866.

Ye Olde Maps of Ye Plymouthe of Ye Merrie Englande
another "ye content over ye style" web page from Steve Johnson Cyberheritage

Jul 2018
this is what happens when a college history professor looks at an old map and tells their students not to look at the circle with a cross on it..its really an "artsy" thing..hummm
Phippsburg History CenterLike This PagePage Liked · March 9 ·

The 1602 Settlement in Narragansett Bay (Newport, Rhode Island)

The other day a couple of emails from researcher Steve DiMarzo dropped into my inbox. They were fairly typical, being screen captures of book passages that were circled with an added note from Steve. And so, it begins…
In 1638, John Josselyn departed his home country of England and traveled to North America, more specifically, to New England. His port of entry was Boston, from whence he traveled about, eventually arriving in Black Point (present-day Scarborough, Maine). Later that same year, he retired down to Nantucket where he caught passage back to England. Twenty-five years later, in May 1663, Josselyn returned to New England, this time spending in excess of eight years prior to returning, yet again, to England late in 1671.

In 1674, Josselyn published a work based on his journal entries of both trips to New England:

-Josselyn, John. 1674. An account of two voyages to New-England: wherein you have the setting out of a ship, with the charges, the prices of all necessaries for furnishing a planter and his family at his first coming, a description of the countrey, natives, and creatures, with their merchantil and physical use, the government of the countrey as it is now possessed by the English, &c., a large chronological table of the most remarkable passages, from the first dicovering of the continent of America, to the year 1673. London: Printed for Giles Widdows.
-Josselyn, John. 1865. An account of two voyages to New-England: made during the years 1638, 1663. Boston: William Veazie. Retrieved March 2019
John Josselyn was not your run of the mill traveler to New England at this period of time. His brother, Henry Josselyn, was one of the early landed gentry and a representative of the early Colonial government. In short, Henry Josselyn, and by extension his brother, John, had extensive connections throughout the entirety of New England, whether it be business or political.

You can read of this here (search on Josselyn): The Beginnings of Colonial Maine: 1602-1658 : Henry Sweetser Burrage : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

You can read about John Josselyn here:
Our present interest in the Josselyn family revolves around the narrative accounts that John Josselyn wrote of his 1638 and 1663-1671 sojourns to New England – specifically of OLD Plymouth and NEW Plymouth.

Josselyn fixes NEW Plymouth along the interior of Massachusetts Bay, in the area that we call Plymouth, MA today. Josselyn wrote: “Massasoit, the great Sachem of the Plimouth Indians, his dwelling was at a place called Sowans, about four miles distant from NEW-PLIMOUTH.”

Further on, Josselyn wrote: “Doubling the Cape we come into the great Bay, on the West whereof is New-Plimouth-Bay, on the Southwest-end of this Bay is situated New Plimouth, the first English-Colony that took firm possession [meaning that it survived] in this Countrey, which was in 1620, and the first Town built [p. 158.].”

There is no doubt that, for Josselyn, NEW-Plimouth was present-day Plymouth, MA.
Of OLD Plymouth, Josselyn wrote several passages:

“In 1602, these north parts [of Virginia] were further discovered by Capt. Bartholomew Gosnold. The first English that planted there, set down not far from the Narragansets-Bay, and called their colony Plimouth, since old Plimouth, An. Dom. 1602.”

“The next place of note on the Main is Narragansets-Bay, within which Bay is Rhode Island a Harbour for the Shunamitish Brethren, as the Saints Errant, the Quakers who are rather to be esteemed Vagabonds, than Religious persons, &c [etc.].

“[p. 157.] At the further end of the Bay by the mouth of Narragansets-River, on the South-side thereof was old Plimouth plantation Anno 1602. Twenty mile out to Sea, South of Rhode Island, lyeth Martins vinyard in the way to Virginia, this Island is governed by a discreet Gentleman Mr. Mayhew by name. To the Eastward of Martin’s vinyard lyeth Nantocket-Island, and further Eastward Elizabeths-Island, these Islands are twenty or thirty mile asunder, and now we are come to Cape-Cod.”
John Josselyn, someone who was in a position to gather granular details of New England for over three decades, whether by personal observation or correspondence with his brother, CONFIRMED that OLD PLYMOUTH was specifically located on the southern end of Aquidneck Island, and whatever remnants that were visible enough to create an association with PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND…were UNDERSTOOD to have been connected with the 1602 ENGLISH exploratory expedition of Bartholomew Gosnold.

part 1

Similar History Discussions