The Kensington Runestone

Jul 2018
part 2
Now, if you were like me a few years ago – when I first ran across Josselyn’s work – you are probably inclined to not attach any significance to what Josselyn wrote about OLD Plymouth and Gosnold.

I didn’t a few years back.

To start with, the account of Bartholemew Gosnold’s 1602 exploration in New England, written by John Brereton and published later that same year, made no mention of Narragansett Bay. There is no doubt that Gosnold was in close proximity to the bay, but, as I read the account, it doesn’t ever place him into that specific area (A briefe and true relation of the discouerie of the north part of Virginia : Brereton, John, 1572-ca. 1619 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive).

John Brereton, as it is written, accompanied the 1602 Gosnold expedition to New England. The expedition departed England on 26 March. They departed the New England area back to England on the 18th of June (arriving back in England on July 23rd). If one does the math, the exploration is limited to, perhaps, 6-7 weeks in the New England area. That isn’t a great deal of time.

Reference for Gosnold’s 1602 Exploration:
Hakluyt, Richard, and Henry S. Burrage. 2007. Early English and French voyages: chiefly from Hakluyt 1534-1608. [Waltham, Mass.]: [Burrage Press]. Retrieved September 2018
Prior to Josselyn’s account, there was only one other surviving historical document which touched upon OLD Plymouth. This was the 1634 published account by William Wood, accompanied by a map which marked the location of OLD Plymouth.

William Wood departed his home country of England in 1629 and traveled to North America, more specifically, to New England. He spent approximately four years in New England (1629-1633), returned to England, and wrote a travel narrative titled “Wood’s New England Prospect.” It is an anthology of geographical places, persons, and fauna of New England (similar to Josselyn’s account four decades later). It contained a map which depicted a settlement on the southern end of Aquidneck Island that was labeled OLD PLYMOUTH. The map was the only mention of this settlement within the travel narrative.

Wood, William. 1865. Wood's New-England's prospect. Boston: John Wilson & Son. Retrieved July 2018

We analyzed the 1634 Wood’s Map and fixed OLD PLYMOUTH at the exact latitude of Newport, Rhode Island.

Previous FB Posts on the Wood Map:
Phippsburg History Center
Phippsburg History Center
Phippsburg History Center
Phippsburg History Center
In 1610, a very accurate mapping of the eastern seaboard of North America was produced. Known as the Velasco Map, it was purloined by Spanish operatives, presumably in England, and whisked off to Spain. It eventually was deposited in the Spanish archives at Simancas, where it was re-discovered in 1887.

The 1610 Velasco Map identified a settlement on the southern end of Aquidneck Island in Narragansett Bay. This conclusion is not intuitively evident. The toponym label of ‘Elisabethes Ilse’ on the Velasco Map corresponded to the 1602 Gosnold expedition and is illustrative of the islands off the southern coast of Cape Cod – NOT Narragansett Bay.

However, if one compares the positioning of the ‘Elisabethes Ilse’ against the latitude scale of the map, and then cross-compares that result against Google Earth, the positioning of the islands is within NARRAGANSETT BAY, not offshore of Cape Cod.

Depicts Newport, RI Settlement
Phippsburg History Center
The 1610 Velasco Map was a compilation of other known, smaller sectional maps produced prior to, or concurrent with, the 1610 date. There is no certainty as to whom the compiler was, but a case has been made that it was an English surveyor by the name of John Daniel. It has been posited that Daniel himself surveyed the section of coast north of Long Island, which included the Narragansett Bay area.

The discussion of this may be found in I.N. Phelps Stokes’ 1915-published work The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909, Vol II.

[Refer to Chapter II, “Hudson’s Mapping of the Vicinity of Manhattan Island,” beginning on page 41 of the text (155 of 866 in the page enumeration on the scroll bar). The Velasco material begins on page 51 of the text and extends to the end of the chapter. There are other references to the Velasco Map in the quite large manuscript, as well. The way to ferret these out is to search on VELASCO.”]

It was Stokes who identified the compiler of the Velasco Map as John Daniel. References to Daniel may be found on pp. 57, 97, and 99 of the text. Additional information is available on p. 150.

Stokes, Isaac Newton Phelps. The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909, Vol II. New York: Robert H. Dodd, 1915. Retrieved February 2019 The iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498-1909 : compiled from original sources and illustrated by photo-intaglio reproductions of important maps, plans, views, and documents in public and private collections : Stokes, I. N. Phelps (Isaac Newton Phelps), 1867-1944 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Additional reading on the cartography of John Daniel:

Dell'Arcano dell'Mare'
Robert Dudley
The written account (ca. 1674) by John Josselyn, the 1634 map of William Wood, and the 1610 Velasco map all point to the fact there was evidence of an abandoned settlement (a PLANTATION) within Narragansett Bay on the southern end of Aquidneck Island. This abandoned settlement was known as OLD Plymouth.

part 3
Jul 2018
part 3

There is nothing in Josselyn’s multi-decade accounting that indicates he ever traveled into Narragansett Bay. This being said, his description of where OLD Plymouth was located is detailed enough to fix it to the southern end of Aquidneck Island.

Josselyn could NOT have gleaned this detail from the 1610 Velasco Map as that map was ensconced in the Spanish archives at Simancas (where it remained undiscovered until 1887).

Josselyn could have gleaned his details from the map of William Wood, whose narrative was widely distributed (multiple printings) in England during that period.

But, WHY would Josselyn expend the effort in the early 1670s to remark on what is ONLY an annotation on 1634 the Wood’s Map? And WHERE did Josselyn come up with the association that OLD Plymouth was a tangible result of Gosnold’s 1602 expedition?

Josselyn’s work is very straightforward and relatively free from hyperbole. Some of his historical accounting has the common mistakes of the era, but as these imperfections reflect the prevailing wisdom of that era, they are altogether not egregious.

Josselyn wrote his narrative based on what he observed, what might have flowed to him via correspondence from his brother, and what he had heard during his tenure in New England. It is entirely plausible that the location and accounting of OLD Plymouth which Josselyn wrote of was what had been related to him.

Josselyn wrote down the details in the journals that he maintained.
Now, being a fairly reasonable person, if someone showed me a shoreline that displayed nothing but driftwood, trees, and shrubs…I most certainly wouldn’t associate that as being an English settlement (PLANTATION). I would daresay that in the early 17th century there were quite a few people who possessed the same basic intellect as I.

Alternately, if someone showed me structural foundations, perhaps an ancient kiln - perhaps even a circular stone tower that paralleled the NINETEEN circular churches constructed in England from ca. 1180 to ca. 1325 - and they opined that it represented some ancient, or old, English habitation…I would very likely shake my head in the affirmative.

And if that person asserted that it might possibly be the handiwork of the 1602 Gosnold expedition, the best-recollected English exploration of the immediate era, I might possibly go along with that, as well (although with much less conviction if I am looking at that stone tower and I KNEW that Gosnold spent only 6-7 weeks in the New England area).
We know from the 1629-1633 account of William Wood that he did, in fact, travel into Narragansett Bay. However, his accounting was focused on the northern section of the bay. There was no explicit, or implicit, language that demonstrated Wood traveled down to, or sailed past, the southern end of Aquidneck Island. Regardless of whether William Wood personally saw or inspected the OLD Plymouth location, or whether he took on good authority the description that others provided him, Wood illustrated the OLD Plymouth PLANTATION on his map.
As mentioned previously, there was no passage in the relation of Gosnold’s 1602 expedition that reflected he was WITHIN Narragansett Bay, or that he discovered some ancient ruins.
The 1610 Velasco Map explicitly demonstrates that a survey of Narragansett Bay took place at a point concurrent with, or prior to, 1610. The red dot on the southern end of Aquidneck Island, once again, correlates to a SETTLEMENT. The latitude cross-comparison fixes this settlement to Newport.
There are two maps, both entering the historical record prior to the establishment of the town of Newport in 1639, and one written account, possibly stemming from as early as 1638, that give reference to an abandoned settlement (of European-style) on the southern end of Aquidneck Island. This settlement was known as OLD Plymouth.

What were they looking at?

my emphasis -
but look at "lower left pic and circle with dot and cross" . list your "guesses" in a post....


Last edited:
Jul 2018
OK - back again with lots of information. We are back at the KRS with this posting....enjoy
Phippsburg History CenterLike This PagePage Liked · March 19 ·

Pentadic Symbols with Arabic Positioning

This narrative and accompanying graphics are available as a PDF file out on Google Drive. Feel free to download it, if you wish:
John M. Armstrong published a short article in the June 1937 “Minnesota History” magazine titled "The Numerals on the Kensington Rune Stone." Armstrong presented an argument that the pentadic notation found on the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), anomalous in form as it used Arabic notational placement, was very likely an indicator that the KRS was a relatively recently-inscribed artifact. Armstrong was methodical, his writing concise, and he quickly drilled down to the premise that the Arabic notational placement for each and every value was highly aberrant:

“It appears, therefore, that the values 14, 22, and 1362 would not have been represented in the year 1362 by the three combined symbols appearing on the stone. On the other hand, it appears that these combined symbols would not have been used to represent any other values either. To make this latter point clear let us attempt to evaluate the symbols. Translating them into the familiar Roman notation, we would have IIIII, which would be V, IIII, which would be IV, and I III VI II, which would be twelve. But if the engraver of the stone had wished to write 5, 4, and 12 he would have written [pentadic five], [pentadic four], and [pentadic 12]. The three combined runic symbols would, therefore, have no meaning if interpreted according to the runic system. They can only be interpreted in terms of the Arabic system.”

“It appears from the foregoing considerations that the engraver of the stone was familiar with the Arabic number system but did not understand its basic logic; and that he knew the runic symbols only for numbers less than ten and did not understand the runic numerals he used. Since this is true, then it is very unlikely that the stone was engraved in the fourteenth century, and much more likely that the stone was engrave in more recent times. The failure of critics of the stone to detect this flaw is a reflection of the fact that the error is just such as a modern fabricator would make in trying to represent the numbers 14, 22, and 1362 by runic symbols.” (Armstrong 1937: 186-87)

We have no way of determining, referencing what Armstrong postulated, whether the carver a) only knew the pentadic notation for values “less than ten” or b) did not understand the “basic logic” of the Arabic number system. Obviously, Armstrong believed both of these conjectural points had some validity.

This begs the question, “Why would any carver, whether they be from the 14th century or the 19th century, elect to place each and every pentadic value into an Arabic positional notation?” Could there be, possibly, a reason for the carver’s decision?

We are going to answer these questions.

Armstrong, John M. 1937. "The numerals on the Kensington rune stone". Minnesota History. 18 (2). Retrieved March 2019
Since the carver elected to place each and every pentadic value into an Arabic positional notation, we propose that each pentadic value was to have a value singly, as well as with the grouping to which it was joined with. This is a testable hypothesis.

There are two inscribed FACES on the rune stone, the first being the FRONT and the second, this face being offset by 90° from the FRONT, is the SIDE.

[8] (8 Göter)
[2] (22 Norrmen)
[2] ((22 Norrmen, repeated))
[2] (2 camps/skerries/shelters/sheds)

The presentation above needs to be explained for clarity. The value within the [ ] is the SINGLE value and the value within the ( ) is the GROUP value.

Let’s add the values:
-A Subtotal: 14 {8 + 2 + 2 + 2}
-B Subtotal: 32 {8 + 22 + 2}
[10] (10 men red with blood and dead/death)
-A Subtotal: 10 (punch within RIGHT-hand oval)
-B Subtotal: 10 (punch within RIGHT-hand oval)
You will note that the last pentadic notation on the FRONT INSCRIPTION has been placed into a separate grouping than the others. This is because the pentadic 10 is referring to DEAD/DEATH. This is a subtraction, so we have to assess it as such. Here is the summary of the FRONT INSCRIPTION:
-A Total: 24 {14 + 10}
-B Total: 42 {8 + 22 + 2 + 10}

This is a subset of the B Total:
-Bb Total: 22 {8 + 22 + 2 (minus) 10 due to dead/death}

The A Total of 24 is interesting.
-24 hours in a day. This will come into play further on.

The B Total of 42 is interesting.
-The pillar centers on the Newport Tower (NT) are all clocked 3° counter clock-wise. This sets the center-point of the North Pillar (Pillar #1) at 357°. This, in turn, renders the NE Pillar’s (#2) center-point 42°. (Norse Activities 1992)

The Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America A.D. 1000- 1500 (1992). “Newport Tower Photogrammetric Measurement Report.” Technical University of Denmark/Danish National Museum. Available at

The Bb Total of 22 is interesting.
-There are 22 Hooked Xs® inscribed upon the KRS. The ancient fractional value for PI, which describes the ratio of a circle’s CIRCUMFERENCE to its DIAMETER, was expressed as 22/7 (‘22 alna, 7 alna’ sequence found in Gks 1812, 4to Icelandic manuscript).

The punch within the RIGHT-hand (East) oval of the pentadic 10 value is interesting, as well.

There is one other pentadic 10 value on the KRS, it being on the SIDE face. Remarkably, it too has a punch within one of its ovals. However, the punch is in the LEFT-hand (West) oval. They are positionally reversed, RIGHT vs. LEFT. (Nielsen & Wolter 2006: 130)

You know…in the same fashion that DAY and NIGHT are opposite of each other.

Nielsen, Richard, and Scott F. Wolter. The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. Place of Publication Not Identified: Lake Superior Agate Pub., 2006.
We now turn to the SIDE INSCRIPTION:
[10] (mans)
-A Subtotal: 10 (punch within LEFT-hand oval; opposite of FRONT INSCRIPTION)
-B Subtotal: 10 (punch within LEFT-hand oval; opposite of FRONT INSCRIPTION)
[1] (14 days)
[4] ((14 days))
-A Subtotal: 5
-B Subtotal: 14
-A Total: 15 {10 + 5}
-B Total: 24 {10 + 14}

We now have all of the potential SINGLE and GROUP values for each face of the KRS.
Let’s do a PATTERN RUN on the pentadic values. Simple observation of the SINGLE and GROUP values informs us that we, possibly, could have a pattern arrangement. The punch-reversal in the pentadic 10s, coupled with the movement from one FACE of the stone to the other FACE, is by itself a pattern-reinforcement. The punch position is clearly a reversal.

Here is one pattern arrangement:

{24} & {24}
{14 + 10} & {10 + 14}

part one -- continue below
Jul 2018
part two
While the FRONT and SIDE values both equal 24, the arrangement of the 14 and 10 values from one FACE to the OTHER, is reversed.

Here are some reversals…
-Front → Side; 90° shift of the plane of the rock;
-14 → 10; 10 → 14; 180° shift, a reversal;

We have been tracking geodetic usage examples of the 24-value found on the KRS for quite some time now. We have hypothesized that the MEGALITHIC SYSTEM OF MEASURES utilized a 24° axial tilt value as the basis for its construct:
-24°N above the Equator // 24°S below the Equator;
-24°N Tropic of Cancer // 24°S Tropic of Capricorn;
-(90° - 24° equals) 66°N Arctic Circle // 66°S Antarctic Circle;
-180° (which is degree span from Pole to Pole) - 48° (24° * 2) = 132°;
-360° / 2.727272 (Megalithic Yard value) = 132°;
-66° / 24° = 2.75;
-22 / 8 = 2.75 (‘22 alna, 8 alna’ sequence found in Gks 1812, 4to Icelandic manuscript).
Let’s do a drill-down from over sum value of 24:
-A FRONT {14 + 10};
-Between the Vernal Equinox and Autumnal Equinox half of the year…;
-14 hrs Length of Day (LoD) + 10 hrs Length of Night (LoN) = 24-hour total day;
-01 May at the NT, which is the 14 hr/10 hr day, the EGG is illuminated by the East Window Lightbox.
B SIDE {10 + 14}
-Between the Autumnal Equinox and Vernal Equinox half of the year…;
-10 hrs Length of Day (LoD) + 14 hrs Length of Night (LoN) = 24-hour total day;
-29/30 January at the NT, which is the 10 hr/14 hr day, the Southeast and West Eyebrow Window Spotlight illuminations drive to North and Dubhe Windows.
Shifting gears, let’s run the GROUP values of the inscription:
-{8 + 22 + 2 + 10} & {10 + 5}
-{42} & {15} = 57
At first, as I was going through the drive-thru at Chick-fi-a while explaining to Steve DiMarzo the code set within the pentadic notation, the 15-value looked like it was going to blow the scheme apart. Then, after I had a chance to do a little more mapping on a piece of paper, the code set gelled back together. Here it is:
-57° is part of the 90°/57°/33° sequence in Gks 1812, 4to;
-We have used values from the FRONT and SIDE, which are 90° offset from each other;
-90° / 57° = 1.5789473 (~PI divided by 2 value);
-57° / 33° = 1.727272 (Cubit value).

The 90°/57°/33° geometry is contained within a diagram found in the Gks 1812, 4to manuscript. (Phippsburg History Center)

-57° [minus] 33° = 24°;
-24 / 14 = 1.71428571 (Cubit value);
-NT EGG, 20.625” (Cubit directly by measurement) / 12.00” = 1.71875 (Cubit value).

Reference (Gks):
Kålund, Kristian & N. Beckman. Alfræði Íslenzk: Islandsk encyklopædisk litteratur, Volume 2. Copenhagen: Møllers bogtrykkeri, 1914-1916. Retrieved November 2017
Here is yet another sequence of the pentadic values on the KRS that returns geodetic information:
-B Front (Total): 42;
-B Side (Total): 24;
-The sum is 66;
-66 / 42 = 1.5714285714 (1/2 of PI, or a 1:2 ratio);
-1.5714285714 * 2 = 3.1428571428 (Pi);
-22 / 7 = 3.1428571428 (Pi, an EXACT value match)

We have PI in the KRS pentadic notation code set.
Let’s do a further breakdown:
-66 / 24 = 2.75;
-22 / 8 = 2.75;
-360° / 8 = 45°;
-In YEAR 1362, the inscribed date on the KRS, the Length of Night (LoN) value of 8hrs, 22 minutes was positioned exactly at 45.00°N latitude parallel (data point obtained from NOAA Solar Calculator).

The NT stands on 8 pillars. Its 360° exterior circumference measure is 22 ALNA of the ANGLO-SAXON (AS) FOOT measure. The AS SYSTEM of MEASURES was converted to the ENGLISH STATUTE (Imperial) MEASURES in 1305 CE. (Phippsburg History Center)
Some more number play here:
42 / 24 = 1.75…so we have another pattern…watch:

-66 / 24 = 2.75
-42 / 24 = 1.75
-18 / 24 = 0.75

We have a RESULT decrementing by 1 every time we step down by the numerator by 24 units. We have seen this mathematical relationship before…

-38 / 14 = 2.7142857142 (Megalithic Yard)
-24 / 14 = 1.7142857142 (Cubit)
-10/14= 0.7142857142 (what is this?)
When the Earth’s AXIAL TILT was 24°, the Arctic Circle was positioned at 66°N and the Tropic of Cancer was at 24°N. What is the DELTA between these two imaginary circles?

Yet another linkage to the KRS pentadic notation, the Gks 1812, 4to and its derived MEGALITHIC SYSTEM OF MEASURES, and the Newport Tower.
What about the pentadic value of 1-3-6-2?
It is the YEAR, just like what is written.
With respect to the postulations that John M. Armstrong raised in 1937, it is apparent that the carver was perfectly cognizant of pentadic notation AND Arabic positional placement. In fact, the carver used them perfectly within the code set.

Armstrong’s conjecture that the KRS was “more likely” to have been engraved in the 19th century than the 14th century is not supportable.

The carver used both the SINGLE and GROUP values of the pentadic notation on the KRS to imbed astro-geodetic information into the allegorical inscription. Had the carver not separated the values into their aberrant SINGLE usage, the code set would not have been obtained.

We hypothesized that a code set possibly existed, we tested the data, and the code set came forth.

There are several considerations that had to be discovered prior to testing the potential for a pentadic notation code set to be present within the KRS inscription.

The first was to understand the Lightbox and Spotlight timing events at the Newport Tower. The 96 minute/24° longitude separation between the NT and KRS, which is represented by the Winter Solstice Rising Point to EGG illumination time, was of critical importance.

The second was a fortuitous discovery – the NT EGG’s 20.625” ES vertical dimension is the dimensional measure of the CUBIT. Then, if we ratio the EGGs height by its width (20.625” / 12.00”), the returned value was 1.71875” – again the CUBIT value. These findings led to several years of research to determine whether the EGG dimension and ratio values were merely coincidental, or could they actually be a purposeful encoding, by design, of that value into the structure. I assert that it is absolutely the latter case.

The 7920 Particula System found in the Gks 1812, 4to was another consideration – and it proved to be the key to unlocking many things. We worked the 7920 Particula System values like nobody’s business – and it has become the well that has never run dry.

The MEGALITHIC SYSTEM OF MEASURES was the offspring, actually the re-discovery, of the system that the ANCIENTS developed, incorporated in their construction, and then it, somehow, became submerged to history. It resurfaced, in the sense that it was documented, in the early 14th century Gks manuscript.

The 7920 Particula System was the model for the Newport Tower. Those geodetic values then found their way onto the Kensington Rune Stone. These two artifacts are a matched set of astro-geodetic monuments on the North American landscape.

In addition, the 7920 Particula System was the mathematical model for the conversion of the ANCIENT Anglo-Saxon System of Measures to the even more accurate, and more ancient, English Statue (Imperial) System of Measures.

Phippsburg History Center
Phippsburg History Center
Phippsburg History Center

The information code set on the KRS would not have been achieved had the carver simply used Roman Numerals, normal pentadic notation, or Arabic enumeration. The carver had to create a hybridized pentadic notation, one that that limited to value to pentadic 10s or less, which then coupled each value to an Arabic positional notation. The hybridized pentadic notation was a brilliant design element.

Jul 2018
For those NOT familiar with geometry research (including navigation), this is what a worksheet looks like. When the "academics" actually start to respond to this, this is what we what would expect to see from the "debunkers". They will need to provide "cold hard" numbers. This is really no different then what engineers do real in life with real situations. A person is able to double check and verify any and ALL calculations. You will note that there are NO - 1) we think comments, 2) its been shown comments, 3) etc etc. Just the numbers please. We have no room for "probably" comments. And we also have the videos for time lapse.....enjoy. And everything that has been done on all the stones and sites is completely and totally reproduceable. Even you can do it. Its not "rocket science".

Phippsburg History Center

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · 8 hrs ·

20 Mar 2019 EQUINOX Sunset

Mapping of time-lapse videography of the West Eyebrow Window Spotlight's pass-through alignment with the East Window and then its intersection with upper, northern corner of Niche 9.

Jim Egan was the videographer.

Jul 2018
for your critical analysis and reading sure to bring some of that Scottish drink with you. if your an academic, the scots don't produce enough for you to drown your worst nightmare.....cheers.

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 17 ·

Summer Solstice & CUBIT
The Rosslyn Vault Sea Chart (Ashley Cowie)

You have seen this before; the Solar Noon Sun Elevation at the NT latitude is 72°. This angular value, in terms of geometry, is part of the computational basis to derive Pi.

Let's zoom HOAX the KRS...which runologists, historians, and debunkers all claim...this is what one has to do:

1) Bribe NOAA to craft their Solar Calculator web application to produce specific results for the NT latitude;
2) Send someone to Iceland in the early 1300s to plant a SACRED GEOMETRY diagram and the 7920 Particula System within the Gks 1812, 4to manuscript;
3) Inscribe a diagram onto the wall of the Vault of the Rosslyn Chapel and then paint it over with enough layers of paint to sink a boat (and then make sure the paint wasn't removed until the 1950s/1960s);
4) Construct the 400,000 or 1,000,000 pound Newport Tower by, at latest within the written historical record, 1677;
5) Convince John Josselyn to write about the Old Plymouth plantation in his 1674 book;
6) Convince William Wood to illustrate Old Plymouth on his 1634 map;
7) Convince John Daniel to illustrate the NT on his 1639 map, which, was an extension of the 1610 Velasco Map which demarked a settlement on the southern end of Aquidneck Island commensurate with the latitude of the NT;
8) Craft a runic inscription and salt it into the landscape so that it could be discovered in 1898.

We could actually produce a more extensive list of what one would have to do to turn the NT, KRS, Rosslyn Sea Chart into the HOAX that runologists, historians, and debunkers claim them to be.

Who is the FRINGE, now?
It isn't me.
This slide presents Solar Data for the LATITUDE of the Newport Tower for YEAR 1362 and YEAR 2018. All data was obtained from NOAA's Solar Calculator web application.

Jul 2018
no comments on this one...wonder why...hummmm
Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 14 ·

Solar Noon Lightbox
This is just a set-up slide for another one that is coming up. It's just numbers and conversions. That being said, you know we are going to drop a bomb using those numbers. Yesterday, Jim Egan went out and marked the Lightbox dimensions and position on the floor of the tower as the Sun hit its maximum (for that day) elevation at SOLAR NOON. Jim, after staking the corners of the Lightbox, proceeded to measure the DISTANCE to each pillar. Then, Jim being the extraordinary researcher that he is, he drew a diagram and emailed it my way. Can you say...22/8, or Gks 1812, 4to, or Anglo-Saxon dimensions, or 45°, or 132°, or Equinox?

Jul 2018
more scratch sheets, more numbers, more alignments, more proof and, boy, did these builders know their stuff and NOT ONE RECORD ANYWHERE of that Arnold guy doing any, and I mean ANY work on this....ever.

Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 15 ·

Solar Noon on 13 March 2019
We get home from work, download what Jim has passed along, and then we start analyzing it. This is one of the scratch sheets. Over the next couple of days we will take this data and get it spreadsheeted up.

I had no idea where the Lightbox was going to position itself inside the tower. On a phone call the prior day, I had mentioned to Jim that, perhaps, the Lightbox would be on the exterior circumference of the structure, or close to the middle. Both of these were straight-up SWAGs. Both were obviously wrong, as well. Jim made the diagram...and then we started doing the computations.

Jul 2018
scratch sheet #2-----
Phippsburg History Center

Page Liked · March 15 ·

Solar Noon on 13 March 2019

This is what is about - data. Capture the data. Jim did a great job with this. Then take the data and run it within the solar-lunar model for the NT. Sometimes the results have no significance, other times they do. Don't be fooled by how easy this appears to be. It is ONLY easy to do because we have WEB APPLICATIONS that allows us to derive values in seconds. If we didn't have these tools, the sheer amount of time to manually run the calculations would be so massive that NO ONE would even contemplate to deconstruct the NT in this fashion.

Diagram and measurements are the work of Jim Egan.


Similar History Discussions