Re: Alignments of the Newport Tower


<ghughesarch@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1169806832.146464.227390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On 26 Jan, 10:02, "IE_Json" <inger_e.johans...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<ghughesa...@xxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1169805154.864621.305480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 25 Jan, 21:22, "IE_Json" <inger_e.johans...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<ghughesa...@xxxxxxx> wrote
inmessagenews:1169745317.512459.101190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 24 Jan, 00:05, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.eastbayri.com/story/288037201508826.php

"Astronomer William S. Penhallow of Charlestown, professor
emeritus
at the University of Rhode Island, will give an informative
lecture, "Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower," on
Thursday, Jan 25, at the Seaman's Church Institute. For more
than
15 years he has studied the tower and he'll present those
findings
to the public using models, a globe and an astrolabe - a
practical
instrument developed by the Greeks, elaborated on by the
Arabs
and
used extensively during the Middle Ages.

"I'm going to try to emphasize that the case of the Newport
Tower
is
a cold case like you see on TV these days," Penhallow
explained.
"It hasn't really been solved. Here you have a structure
above
ground that shows great intelligence. It wasn't built
haphazardly.
You've got the eight pillars that were laid out very
precisely.
The
random openings are not random at all. They were carefully
worked
out."

Eric Stevens

The article continues:

Two main theories about the tower's origin are that it was simply
a
windmill built by Newport Gov. Benedict Arnold in the late 1600s
or it
was a creation of the Vikings.

However, Penhallow said it is far more complicated than the Arnold
theory. He said about 12 to 15 years ago, a Danish group came to
Newport and did a photogrammetric study. It involved the use of
sophisticated equipment in an attempt to find the unit of measure
the
builders used. From the survey, it was found that it was not
measured
in feet.

Since all colonial structures in New England were built using
feet,
that would eliminate anything having to do with Arnold, Penhallow
noted.

The Viking theory came to be because of a runic inscription on a
stone
on the tower which is quite controversial.

"This runic stone implied they (the Vikings) built it," said
Penhallow.
"I think it was a religious site and someone in 1100 or 1200 left
the
runic stone around to mark the location. Someone came around
between
1300 and 1500 and used that stone not even knowing there was an
inscription on it in the building of the tower. They covered it
over
with pargeting (like stucco) and wasn't aware it was there."

Penhallow, 73, said the purpose of the tower was to determine the
motions of the sun, moon and stars in a general, religious
background.
And that's coming from a man who earned a master's degree in
physics
from the University of Maine and began his career at URI in 1959.

Since then he established the Quonochontaug Observatory at the
college
in 1987, taking part in the international tracking of Halley's
Comet,
and opened the Frosty Drew Observatory at Ninigret Park in
Charlestown
in 1988. It was there that the public observed the collision of
the
fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy with the planet Jupiter.

The lecture is sponsored by Tempus Fugit, of which Helen Farrell
Allen,
a Wakefield historian, is principal. She said the organization was
founded in 1994 with the mission of alerting people to the
importance
of early American history.

The Newport Tower was mentioned in the book "1421: The Year China
Discovered America" (2002), by Gavin Menzies. Last year the
Chronognostic Research Foundation of Tempe, Ariz., tested the area
around the structure but was unable to excavate directly under it.
The
foundation found nothing earlier than 1600 to 1700, but Penhallow
feels
they did not dig in the correct place.

Penhallow said his interest was piqued by the tower because of its
link
with navigation, position and religion. He said an interesting
possibility is that it was built by Knights Templar, a religious
group
formed at the time of the Crusades.

"Again, what I'm trying to do is show it's an open question," he
said.
"We don't know for sure. We need more continued work on it. This
group
(that built it) was interested in colonizing the New World."

There's a lot I find quite fascinating in all that, but not for
the
reasons the good professor might like, for example:

"Penhallow said it is far more complicated than the Arnold theory.
He
said about 12 to 15 years ago, a Danish group came to Newport and
did
a
photogrammetric study. It involved the use of sophisticated
equipment
in an attempt to find the unit of measure the builders used. From
the
survey, it was found that it was not measured in feet. Since all
colonial structures in New England were built using feet, that
would
eliminate anything having to do with Arnold, Penhallow noted."

- I think you'll find that a *direct* correlation between *exact*
measurements in feet is as rare in colonial structures in New
England
as it is in structures of the same period in England proper. The
tower
is *about* 26ft high and *about* 17ft diameter. *About*, until the
nineteenth century, was always close enough. Bring *about* inches
into
the equation and the argument that it's not built in English 17th
century measurements falls apart completely. Of course, with the
degree
of inaccuracy characteristic of middling-status buildings of the
period, you could probably "prove" that it's built to any
measuring
system you care to name. It wasn't built with "sophisticated
measuring
equipment" so measuring it with such equipemnt will only provide a
misleading impression of precision.

"Penhallow, 73, said the purpose of the tower was to determine the
motions of the sun, moon and stars in a general, religious
background.
And that's coming from a man who earned a master's degree in
physics
from the University of Maine and began his career at URI in 1959.
"

- So a man with no qualification or background in history or
archaeology thinks it's some sort of religious observatory. Are
there
any comparable observatories existing in the archaeological or
written
record for western (Viking, if you want to go down that route)
culture
at any period that is appropriate to any of the supposed dates for
the
Tower?

"Since then he established the Quonochontaug Observatory at the
college
in 1987, taking part in the international tracking of Halley's
Comet,
and opened the Frosty Drew Observatory at Ninigret Park in
Charlestown
in 1988. It was there that the public observed the collision of
the
fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy with the planet Jupiter"

- And that has what to do with his opinions about the Newport
Tower,
exactly?

"This runic stone implied they (the Vikings) built it," said
Penhallow.
"I think it was a religious site and someone in 1100 or 1200 left
the
runic stone around to mark the location. Someone came around
between
1300 and 1500 and used that stone not even knowing there was an
inscription on it in the building of the tower. They covered it
over
with pargeting (like stucco) and wasn't aware it was there."

- Now that's just deeply confused. It uses a Viking stone, but it
wasn't built until 100-200 years later, by people who didn't
understand
the (alleged) inscription, which actually implies that the Vikings
*didn't* build it. So we're looking for a religion that was under
way
c.1300-1500 that required accurate astronomical alignments.

- I hope it's an interesting evening, but just remember that there
are
an infinity of items in the file labelled "fascinating historical
questions to which the answer is 'no'," and some more are going to
be
added by Penhallow.

GarethI am pretty sure that the English wasn't willing to accept
'about' this or
that feet. Neither would any Scandinavian in the past accept 'about'
this or
that 'fot' or 'aln'. We do know that the measurment for buying and
selling
cloths were as exact as can be, not only due to the taxsystem when
cloths
were traded from one country to the next. Do you Gareth really
believe
that
the English carpenters weren't aware of what an English measurement
system
was like?????

Inger E

Of course they were aware of it, but measuring a seventeenth century
building and expecting to find that the carpenter, say, cut every
timber (not every joint, but every timber) to the exact foot, rather
than being slightly off, is nonsense.

For example, the sitting room of my house is 12ft 3 1/4in along the
north wall and 12ft 1 1/2in along the south wall. A difference of 1
3/4in, but you can bet the builder meant the two measurements to be
the
same. What's more, neither is an exact, or a logical, division or
multiple of feet and inches. Measure tham with "sophisticated
equipment" and then try to find the measuring unit they were built to
and you can be sure (if you assume there was a rocket-science level of
precision) it won't match English imperial.

GarethI see your point, but and this is essential, I don't buy that
this was the
case for Newport Tower who ever built it and whenever it was built.

So you're saying that, in this respect, the Newport Tower is different
to every other building in the world?


Anyway, has the professor's lecture happened yet (I'm a bit foggy about
time differences), and if so, did anyone go? and was it any good?

Being in Sweden doesn't help me to get to the lecture no matter that my
daughter works with airlines.

Inger E



.

Relevant Pages