Proof the Vinland map is fake?

[Simon Pugh]

From today's Sunday Times: Amateur historian Paul Floyd claims he has
proof the Vinland map is fake.
It seems to be based on the catalogue of an 1892 exhibition in Madrid at
which the Tartar Relation and Speculum Historiale were displayed and
there is no mention the map.
Also the work of Cristobel Perez Pastor a Spanish priest who made a
detail examination of the documents some 50 years before they came into
the hands of Enzo Ferrajoli who sold the map in 1957. He describes the
parchment that now has the map, but does not mention the map.

He has also noticed a problem when the Vinland map is compared with the
map attributed to Andrea Bianco. The map is similar but the the Bianco
map has a much deeper inlet on the Southern coast of Ireland. This
feature is similar to an engraving of the Bianco map made by Vincenzoio
Formaleone in 1782.

Peter Barber, the British Library's head of cartographical and
topographical materials said this weekend: "The map community is taking
this seriously. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see the obvious.

I haven't really followed the Vinland story so I am not sure if this is
old hat.

I can't post a link to the article as the Sunday Times requires a
subscription.

--
Simon Pugh

[Simon Pugh]

A link to MapHist on the subject
http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360


--
Simon Pugh

[Paul J Gans]

Thanks Simon. The map comes up every so often here as you
will remember. I do believe that the strong consensus was
that the map was a fake.

It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
blank then.

So of course the paper would test as old. It was the ink,
IIRC, that bothered people.

The situation reminds me of the Black Death and Y. pestis.
Every so often somebody pops up with a "proof" that it
was not Y. pestis, only to have even more evidence show
that was.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Simon Pugh]

On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

>
>
>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>
> Thanks Simon. The map comes up every so often here as you
> will remember. I do believe that the strong consensus was
> that the map was a fake.
>
> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
> blank then.
>
> So of course the paper would test as old. It was the ink,
> IIRC, that bothered people.
>
> The situation reminds me of the Black Death and Y. pestis.
> Every so often somebody pops up with a "proof" that it
> was not Y. pestis, only to have even more evidence show
> that was.
>

Yes Paul, I have thought for a long time that the evidence strongly
suggests that it is a fake.
The Daily Mail has picked up on the story as well:
http://tinyurl.com/mpezuqp

I wonder if any of the old faithful pro map brigade will show up. :-)

--
Simon Pugh

[W. Baker]

Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:

Let's all hope tht this does not awaken the sleeping In***.

Wendy W. Baker

[Eric Stevens]

I was never pro map although many thought I was. It's just that I was
not anti map either which inevitably, to many, made me pro map.

It's nice to have evidence that the map was not mentioned in 1892. It
would be even nicer to encounter a mention from that time that the
particular page was blank. That would nail the argument for good (at
least until someone suggests the 1892 documentation is fake :-).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[John Briggs]

If the Daily Mail says that the map is a fake I'd be inclined to believe
that it's genuine :-)
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Which can hardly be described as a discussion...
--
John Briggs

[Michael Kuettner]

<sigh>
Google this group for Vinland map and Anastase.
The map is a fucking fake.
You'll get a bonus : The man who did the chemical analysis
posted here ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

PS : This discussion was when Ingwer E. J. and her lapdog Eric
frantically tried to run interception ...

[Michael Kuettner]

You still are a dishonest swine.
Anybody interested can google for Anatase and the Vinland map.
There you'll see Ingwer and her lapdog Eric in full swing.

[Paul J Gans]

Well, there is that. I'm willing to suspend judgement for a week.

[Paul J Gans]

There were some bloody ones right here.

[Bill]

Not really.

There were a couple of eccentrics and one raving lunatic, all of whom
used to cry with very loud voices, but they weren't actually
convincing anyone sane of anything.

[Eric Stevens]

You will see me asking questions. Accepting opinions on the basis of
authorities on high has never been my style. Of course some would-be
authorities do not like being questioned.

I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
much else anyone could do with her.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Paul J Gans]

They never do. But it went back and forth for a great deal
of time and involved all sorts of folks other than the couple
of eccentrics. Even good old DSH was heavily involved.

I recall having to read several of the very technical anatase
articles because folks just wouldn't accept the science.

[Paul J Gans]

Well, THAT is certainly right!

[Eric Stevens]

Frankly, I felt sorry for her.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:29:46 +1200, Eric Stevens

Any sorry or sympathy I had for her died when she made a formal
complaint about me to my email provider at that time and got a 'paid
for' account frozen for 'abuse'...

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:43:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I remember the incident. If it had happened to me, I too would have
been p***ed off. Nevertheless it was clear that Inger lived in a world
which had a diminishing connection with reality and she had had a
number of unfortunate things happen to her in her life. I'm afraid
that you were little more than collateral damage. The worst thing was
that she was interested in topics which interested a great many of us.
Even now I fear awakening the ghost.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Erilar]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:

> A link to MapHist on the subject
>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>
> Thanks Simon. The map comes up every so often here as you
> will remember. I do believe that the strong consensus was
> that the map was a fake.
>
> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
> blank then.
>
> So of course the paper would test as old. It was the ink,
> IIRC, that bothered people.
>

In another group, several people seem to believe the thing is authentic or
not, based on the "new" find, and when I commented that this was an old
argument, was informed that the old arguments against it were invalid 8-)



--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[Erilar]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>.
>
> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
> much else anyone could do with her.

There was. I simply killfiled her early on and skipped most replies to her
idiocy.

[Michael Kuettner]

Your so-called "questions" were never questions at all, but always
defence of fringe-theories.
"Bronze-age shipwrecks" is another example of your "questions" and your
state of Inger's lapdog.
You really seem to think that you could gain some credibility by fading
memories ?

> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
> much else anyone could do with her.
>

No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.

[Renia]

On 04/06/2013 13:58, Erilar wrote:
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> .
>>
>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>> much else anyone could do with her.
>
> There was. I simply killfiled her early on and skipped most replies to her
> idiocy.

Looking back, I think she possibly had Alzheimer's.

[Paul J Gans]

Of course they would. To do otherwise would be to admit
they were wrong.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:16:55 +0200, Michael Kuettner

<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:53:09 +0200, Michael Kuettner
>> <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:48:57 +0100, Simon Pugh
>>>> <ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>>>>>>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>>>>>>

---- snip ----

>>> You still are a dishonest swine.
>>> Anybody interested can google for Anatase and the Vinland map.
>>> There you'll see Ingwer and her lapdog Eric in full swing.
>>
>> You will see me asking questions. Accepting opinions on the basis of
>> authorities on high has never been my style. Of course some would-be
>> authorities do not like being questioned.
>>
>You still are a dishonest swine.
>Your so-called "questions" were never questions at all, but always
>defence of fringe-theories.
>"Bronze-age shipwrecks" is another example of your "questions" and your
>state of Inger's lapdog.
>You really seem to think that you could gain some credibility by fading
>memories ?

Certainly not from yours. Here is what Google recovers of that wreck
of an argument http://tinyurl.com/m847pvv

It seems as though it is 'George' who is being accused of lying. Major
contributions have come from 'Seppo Renfors'. It's not clear what my
involvement was but nobody seems to be accusing me of lying.

>
>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>> much else anyone could do with her.
>>
>No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
>and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
>You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.

You need stronger meds.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bryn]

Yep! That is a conflict..

[Bryn]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:17:32 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>
>
> You need stronger meds.
>
> --

Hi Eric!

Bryn

[Eric Stevens]

rOn Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Bryn

Howdi Bryn!

Good to hear from a friend from the past.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bryn]

Yep! I am still thrashing about in the shallow end of the gene pool..

*#;-]

[Michael Kuettner]

Yep. Certainly not from mine.
And certainly not from Kenneth Towe's memories about you and Inger.
In the special context of bronze-age shipwrecks we might also consult
Brian M. Scott, who left after you and Inger finally went beyond reality.
Now, let's see :
<http://www.mombu.com/science/archaeology/t-bronze-age-shipwrecks-3768106.html>

The dishonest swine in full squinking mode.

> It seems as though it is 'George' who is being accused of lying. Major
> contributions have come from 'Seppo Renfors'. It's not clear what my
> involvement was but nobody seems to be accusing me of lying.
>>
>>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>>> much else anyone could do with her.
>>>
>> No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
>> and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
>> You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.
>
> You need stronger meds.
>

I do, you dishonest swine ?
Just ask Brian M. Scott about your role in "bronze-age shipwrecks", you
half-educated little twerp.
Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
"open-minded" wanker.

Disregards.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:02:11 +0200, Michael Kuettner

What? When I wrote:

See http://www.premierelect.co.uk/images/bacd02.jpg for a
chart of the English Channel and Dover Straight. Few people
would regard the two as being distinct. You seem to be being
excessively picky again.

... or when I wrote:

The claim that the English Channel does not include the the
Dover Strait is nonsense. If you doubt me, you should find out
whether or not the channle ferries use Dover etc. You should
also look up 'channel ports' and you will find many of them
line the Straits of Dover.

You should read your references before you post them.

>
>> It seems as though it is 'George' who is being accused of lying. Major
>> contributions have come from 'Seppo Renfors'. It's not clear what my
>> involvement was but nobody seems to be accusing me of lying.
>>>
>>>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>>>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>>>> much else anyone could do with her.
>>>>
>>> No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
>>> and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
>>> You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.
>>
>> You need stronger meds.
>>
>I do, you dishonest swine ?
>Just ask Brian M. Scott about your role in "bronze-age shipwrecks", you
>half-educated little twerp.
>Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
>"open-minded" wanker.
>
>Disregards.
>
>
>

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Renia]

On 05/06/2013 20:02, Michael Kuettner wrote:

> Eric Stevens wrote:

> Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
> "open-minded" wanker.
>
> Disregards.

Gosh, but you're just as rude as ever.

[Erilar]

Some of us have longer memories than others 8-)

[Renia]

On 06/06/2013 04:05, Erilar wrote:
> Renia <re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2013 20:02, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
>>> "open-minded" wanker.
>>>
>>> Disregards.
>>
>> Gosh, but you're just as rude as ever.
>
> Some of us have longer memories than others 8-)

And others are very smug.

[John Briggs]

No-one has any way of knowing whether *anything* she said had any basis
in reality.
--
John Briggs

[Michael Kuettner]

> .... or when I wrote:
>
> The claim that the English Channel does not include the the
> Dover Strait is nonsense. If you doubt me, you should find out
> whether or not the channle ferries use Dover etc. You should
> also look up 'channel ports' and you will find many of them
> line the Straits of Dover.
>

In full obfuscation mode.
The original claim from Inger were some wrecks which noone but her
could find anywhere.
Then you ran interference once again as shown above.

> You should read your references before you post them.
>

You should stop denying your role as Ingers Lapdog, you dishonest swine.

>>
>>> It seems as though it is 'George' who is being accused of lying. Major
>>> contributions have come from 'Seppo Renfors'. It's not clear what my
>>> involvement was but nobody seems to be accusing me of lying.
>>>>
>>>>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>>>>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>>>>> much else anyone could do with her.
>>>>>
>>>> No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
>>>> and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
>>>> You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.
>>>
>>> You need stronger meds.
>>>
>> I do, you dishonest swine ?
>> Just ask Brian M. Scott about your role in "bronze-age shipwrecks", you
>> half-educated little twerp.
>> Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
>> "open-minded" wanker.
>>

Ah, no reply here.
Not really surprising.

>> Disregards.
>>
>>
>>

[Michael Kuettner]

Gosh, and you are as dumb as ever.

[Odysseus]

In article <ptknq8tsa7753i8td...@4ax.com>,
Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

<snip>

> >On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> A link to MapHist on the subject
> >>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360

[...]

> >> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
> >> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
> >> blank then.

[...]

> I was never pro map although many thought I was. It's just that I was
> not anti map either which inevitably, to many, made me pro map.
>
> It's nice to have evidence that the map was not mentioned in 1892. It
> would be even nicer to encounter a mention from that time that the
> particular page was blank. That would nail the argument for good (at
> least until someone suggests the 1892 documentation is fake :-).

Does not the bit I didn't snip above fulfill that wish?

The passage referred to is "Floyd [...] believes that Pérez Pastor
examined the manuscripts at the Madrid exhibition, and that the priest's
description can be used to show that the very piece of parchment on
which the map was later drawn was present in the volume at the time."

--
Odysseus

[Bryn]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:24:27 AM UTC+1, Simon Pugh wrote:
> From today's Sunday Times: Amateur historian Paul Floyd claims he has
>
> proof the Vinland map is fake.
>
> It seems to be based on the catalogue of an 1892 exhibition in Madrid at
>
> which the Tartar Relation and Speculum Historiale were displayed and
>
> there is no mention the map.
>
> Also the work of Cristobel Perez Pastor a Spanish priest who made a
>
> detail examination of the documents some 50 years before they came into
>
> the hands of Enzo Ferrajoli who sold the map in 1957. He describes the
>
> parchment that now has the map, but does not mention the map.
>
>
>
> He has also noticed a problem when the Vinland map is compared with the
>
> map attributed to Andrea Bianco. The map is similar but the the Bianco
>
> map has a much deeper inlet on the Southern coast of Ireland. This
>
> feature is similar to an engraving of the Bianco map made by Vincenzoio
>
> Formaleone in 1782.
>
>
>
> Peter Barber, the British Library's head of cartographical and
>
> topographical materials said this weekend: "The map community is taking
>
> this seriously. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see the obvious.
>
>
>
> I haven't really followed the Vinland story so I am not sure if this is
>
> old hat.
>
>
>
> I can't post a link to the article as the Sunday Times requires a
>
> subscription.
>

I recall something about matching wormholes with the next page of a book..

A bit sus in my opinion..

Bryn

[Peter Jason]

....and as Medieval


Girls and boys, are come out to play,
The moon doth shine as bright as day;
Leave your supper, and leave your sleep,
And come with your playfellows into the
street.
Come with a whoop, come with a call,
Come with a good will or not at all.
Up the ladder and down the wall,
A halfpenny roll will serve us all.
You find milk, and I'll find flour,
And we'll have a pudding in half an hour.[1]

[Michael Kuettner]

Odysseus wrote:
> In article <ptknq8tsa7753i8td...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>>>>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>
> [...]
>
>>>> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
>>>> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
>>>> blank then.
>
> [...]
>
>> I was never pro map although many thought I was. It's just that I was
>> not anti map either which inevitably, to many, made me pro map.
>>
>> It's nice to have evidence that the map was not mentioned in 1892. It
>> would be even nicer to encounter a mention from that time that the
>> particular page was blank. That would nail the argument for good (at
>> least until someone suggests the 1892 documentation is fake :-).
>
> Does not the bit I didn't snip above fulfill that wish?

Not for Stevens. That's his modus operandi.

> The passage referred to is "Floyd [...] believes that Pérez Pastor
> examined the manuscripts at the Madrid exhibition, and that the priest's
> description can be used to show that the very piece of parchment on
> which the map was later drawn was present in the volume at the time."
>

Watch for Steven's next argument : "The priest could have meant the
page AFTER the Vinland map."
It has been shown beyond doubt that the used anatase was of modern origin.
It has been shown that the black on the map was painted around the
anatase lines.
It was a masterful forgery; except for Stevens. His "open mind" now
tries to discredit the existing evidence by asking for more evidence.
Ad infinitum.
We've been there more than once ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Nope; the wormholes showed that the parchment was in the book.
Ken Towe showed that the "Vinland map" painted on the ancient page was
using modern anatase. Plus : The soot painted around the white lines was
old, too. The forger was very good; he just shouldn't have used modern
white pigments.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

PS : The custom of leaving pages blank in books is rather old.
I could supply paper for forgeries from 1500 onwards ...

[robert...@gmail.com]

I thought all the Tippex had blown this one years ago?
And what about the KRS, let's get back to some SERIOUS stuff!

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:45:13 +0200, Michael Kuettner

None of that is apparent from your citation.

>
>> You should read your references before you post them.
>>
>You should stop denying your role as Ingers Lapdog, you dishonest swine.
>
>
>>>
>>>> It seems as though it is 'George' who is being accused of lying. Major
>>>> contributions have come from 'Seppo Renfors'. It's not clear what my
>>>> involvement was but nobody seems to be accusing me of lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never had any connection with Inger. I generally ignored her and
>>>>>> almost never replied to her. I just let her go on. There was nothing
>>>>>> much else anyone could do with her.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, you generally ran interference for her, badmouthed her opponents
>>>>> and were an asshole; which you still are, btw.
>>>>> You haven't changed at all; you just hide your cookdom a little better.
>>>>
>>>> You need stronger meds.
>>>>
>>> I do, you dishonest swine ?
>>> Just ask Brian M. Scott about your role in "bronze-age shipwrecks", you
>>> half-educated little twerp.
>>> Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
>>> "open-minded" wanker.
>>>
>Ah, no reply here.
>Not really surprising.

I see no point in dragging other people into the argument.

[Eric Stevens]

Its a fine point but the fact that the priest did not mention th
existence of the map is dot definitive evidence that the map was not
there. That's why the matter could be put to it's final resting place
if the priest had specifically mentioned that the relevant page was
blank.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[robert...@gmail.com]

Eric, I always considered you a friend... and a fairly sensible one, capable of defending even hopeless positions. With politeness and respect.
As for Seppo... well, that's quite another matter! And as for Inger, the less said the better!

Eric, you have often been cruelly betrayed by the insanity and vileness of those who have 'supported' you position on certain things, which has unfortunately and (IMO unfairly sometimes) led to savage personal criticism.

I appreciate that it is a brave and reckless fellow who sticks up for the KRS these days, and as an Englishman who tends to like underdogs (and lost causes), you have my admiration.

Good luck to you... I'm afraid you need some now and then... and my best reguards!

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 4:24:27 AM UTC-4, Simon Pugh wrote:
> From today's Sunday Times: Amateur historian Paul Floyd claims he has
>
> proof the Vinland map is fake.
>
> It seems to be based on the catalogue of an 1892 exhibition in Madrid at
>
> which the Tartar Relation and Speculum Historiale were displayed and
>
> there is no mention the map.
>
> Also the work of Cristobel Perez Pastor a Spanish priest who made a
>
> detail examination of the documents some 50 years before they came into
>
> the hands of Enzo Ferrajoli who sold the map in 1957. He describes the
>
> parchment that now has the map, but does not mention the map.
>
>
>
> He has also noticed a problem when the Vinland map is compared with the
>
> map attributed to Andrea Bianco. The map is similar but the the Bianco
>
> map has a much deeper inlet on the Southern coast of Ireland. This
>
> feature is similar to an engraving of the Bianco map made by Vincenzoio
>
> Formaleone in 1782.
>
>
>
> Peter Barber, the British Library's head of cartographical and
>
> topographical materials said this weekend: "The map community is taking
>
> this seriously. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see the obvious.
>
>
>
> I haven't really followed the Vinland story so I am not sure if this is
>
> old hat.

The following is from Samuel Eliot Morison, The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, Oxford Univ. Press (1971) pp. 69-70.

<<It may yet be proved genuine by chemical analysis of the ink, etc.; but I have serious reservations about it-the polite scholarly term for saying that you suspect fakery. The ground for my suspicion is this: Whilst the greater part of the map, supposed to illustrate the Tartar Relation, is an Andrea Bianco mappemonde type of around 1436, with the usual Ptolemaic errors and mythical islands, the "Isolanda," "Gronelanda" and "Vinlanda" correspond so closely to the outlines and relative positions of Iceland, Greenland below 72° N, and Baffin island on modern maps, that they must have been dubbed in by some clever forger at a much later date. Note the close resemblance of "Vinlanda Insula" to Baffin Island-Cumberland Sound and Frobisher Bay are there, and Nettining Lake, draining east instead of west to look like the Norsemen's Hóp. Note that Greenland is an island. It was never so depicted on a map prior to 1650, but as a peninsula of Asia. Note the remarkable accuracy of Iceland, and of the east coast of Greenland, which on the Canino map of 1502 is correctly shown as shrouded with ice. Note the east coast fjord of Angmagssalik (about 65°30' N, and Scoresby Sound at 70° N, which could not by any stretch of the imagination have been explored that early; and on the west coast, indentations which correspond closely to the modern Söndre, Strömfjord, Disko, Bugt, Karrets Fjord; note the westerly trend of the coast north of Upernavik. No this map of the northern regions is just too accurate to have been drafted in 1450 or for a least two centuries thereafter. It is a sharp contrast to the grotesquely inaccurate Eurasian part of the map, which is supposed to illustrate the Tartar Relation. And what do the three northern islands illustrate, other than some forger's appetite for dollars? Not one of the Danish and Icelandiv scholars whom I consulted at Copenhagen in May 1969 believes the Vinland Map to be genuine, although they have every national and sentimental reason to accept it as such.>>

Information about the PBS broadcast "The Viking Deception" is available at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vinland/

[Eric Stevens]

Thank you for the kind words.

My interests are driven by two things. First I am curious. Second I do
not have the kind of memory required to engage in academic hurly burly
over ever finer details of that which is known. New discoveries are
nearly always made around the edges and that is where I tend to look.

I currently hold no opinion on the KRS. I thought that at one stage
Nielsen and Wolter were in the process of making a case for
authenticity but now they have fallen out I don't know enough of the
facts to reach any conclusion. At present I have no opinion.

I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower. I don't
think any of the major explanations will withstand close examination.

Vowelless Ogham (can you remember that far back?) remains a mystery.
The late Larry Athy had collected approximately 100 authenticated
(i.e. they were real, and not modern fakes) examples of the script
from around the world. Vowelless Ogham does seem to exist but I don't
know of any authorities on Ogham who have seriously examined it. Larry
Athy had a statistical argument that certain of the scripts employed a
language in common but I could never get anyone knowledgeable to
examine it seriously.

Although not within the scope of this news group, I have to mention
anthropogenic (carbon) climate change. Initially I was a believer but
quickly became a sceptic. The facts that are now emerging seem to
suggest that my scepticism has been justified. At the same time, I am
developing a theory of my own about the possibility of +10,000 year
climate change arising from an as yet unsuspected cause: hunting.

Oh look! There is another wild goose on the horizon!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:01:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:


>I currently hold no opinion on the KRS.

It's a fake.

>I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower.

It's a windmill built by a man called Arnold.

If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
debate.

As for Ogham, I don't know enough about it to comment, but if it was
that important someone would have shaken it like a rag doll by now and
got some sense out of it.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:10:26 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:01:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>I currently hold no opinion on the KRS.
>
>It's a fake.
>
>>I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower.
>
>It's a windmill built by a man called Arnold.

The is no evidene that he actually built it. There are lots of reasons
why he most likely did not.

>
>If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>debate.

Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.

>
>As for Ogham, I don't know enough about it to comment, but if it was
>that important someone would have shaken it like a rag doll by now and
>got some sense out of it.

Not if the few experts insist on turning their back on it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:11:42 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:10:26 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:01:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I currently hold no opinion on the KRS.
>>
>>It's a fake.
>>
>>>I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower.
>>
>>It's a windmill built by a man called Arnold.
>
>The is no evidene that he actually built it.

There is.

There are lots of reasons
>why he most likely did not.

Nope, no reasons why he shouldn't have built it.

>>If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>>debate.
>
>Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.

Goodness no, it would be regarded as 17th century and so a fair bit
younger than my local pub and not uncommon at all...

>>As for Ogham, I don't know enough about it to comment, but if it was
>>that important someone would have shaken it like a rag doll by now and
>>got some sense out of it.
>
>Not if the few experts insist on turning their back on it.

Now why is that I wonder...

[Bryn]

Don't worry! I'll throw my sunstone at it...

Bryn

Still lurking....

[Bryn]

Because its an alphabet not a language... *#;-]

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:59:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:11:42 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:10:26 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:01:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I currently hold no opinion on the KRS.
>>>
>>>It's a fake.
>>>
>>>>I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower.
>>>
>>>It's a windmill built by a man called Arnold.
>>
>>The is no evidene that he actually built it.
>
>There is.
>
> There are lots of reasons
>>why he most likely did not.
>
>Nope, no reasons why he shouldn't have built it.

Exactly the same 'no reasons' which apply to many other people who
have lived in the vicinity.

>
>>>If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>>>debate.
>>
>>Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.
>
>Goodness no, it would be regarded as 17th century and so a fair bit
>younger than my local pub and not uncommon at all...

Rubble-cored perhaps but the absence of any attempt at ashlar
stonework is characteristic of only the earlier stonework. The
stonework of the arches is particularly primitive and suggests only a
minimum acquaintance with architectural tradition.

>
>>>As for Ogham, I don't know enough about it to comment, but if it was
>>>that important someone would have shaken it like a rag doll by now and
>>>got some sense out of it.
>>
>>Not if the few experts insist on turning their back on it.
>
>Now why is that I wonder...

Nobody wants to step so far out of line.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:35:41 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:59:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>>>If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>>>>debate.
>>>
>>>Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.
>>
>>Goodness no, it would be regarded as 17th century and so a fair bit
>>younger than my local pub and not uncommon at all...
>
>Rubble-cored perhaps but the absence of any attempt at ashlar
>stonework is characteristic of only the earlier stonework. The
>stonework of the arches is particularly primitive and suggests only a
>minimum acquaintance with architectural tradition.
>

Well yes, it was built by the locals.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:23:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But why?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:06:43 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:23:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:35:41 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:59:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>>If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>>>>>>debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.
>>>>
>>>>Goodness no, it would be regarded as 17th century and so a fair bit
>>>>younger than my local pub and not uncommon at all...
>>>
>>>Rubble-cored perhaps but the absence of any attempt at ashlar
>>>stonework is characteristic of only the earlier stonework. The
>>>stonework of the arches is particularly primitive and suggests only a
>>>minimum acquaintance with architectural tradition.
>>>
>>
>>Well yes, it was built by the locals.
>
>But why?

Why build a windmill?

Easy, to grind grains.

Why build a stone one?

Easy, as a status symbol.

This stuff isn't rocket science, it's only history.

History has patterns.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:18:17 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

But the town already had a mill (Johnston's as I recall). This mill
later blew down and had to be replaced in a hurry. Even if it was
circular (which it is not) the structure of the Newport Tower is not
what one would build as an emergency replacement.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:26:34 +1200, Eric Stevens

So what?

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:48:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

So why did the Governor of a fledgling colony engaged in intermittent
warfare with the natives decide to build a mill of such an ornate
structure at a time when the colony was still strggling for existence?
Further, what is the evidence that he actually did this?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:20:32 +1200, Eric Stevens

As a status symbol.

>Further, what is the evidence that he actually did this?

There's very little evidence of this structure's building from anyone.

Occam's razor says it's a seventeenth century mill because there's a
picture of a contemporary mill of similar design in England.

It's up to you to show proof that it's anything different, and you
don't have any...

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:43:26 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

He didn't need a status symbol: he was already the colony's richest
man. Further, at the conclusion of King Philip's war he was appointed
President of the colony. He couldn't have had more status. If he built
the tower as a status symbol, why did he make so little fuss about it
that there is NO written record of him building it?

In the course of King Philip's war, all buildings West of the
Providence River except Roger Williams' home were burned by the
Indians. It is doubtful that there was manpower to spare for other
than essential work, and status-building 500 ton stone windmills would
not be regarded as an essential work.

>
>>Further, what is the evidence that he actually did this?
>
>There's very little evidence of this structure's building from anyone.

Exactly.

>
>Occam's razor says it's a seventeenth century mill because there's a
>picture of a contemporary mill of similar design in England.

You are referring to the Chesterton windmill. There is confusion over
this. Arnold could only have seen this as a child and it is quite
possible that he never saw it.

Further the geometrical errors in the shape of the tower make it
unsuited for use as a windmill.

>
>It's up to you to show proof that it's anything different, and you
>don't have any...

You are making the claim and it's up to you to substantiate it.

Suggestions that it is something other than a windmill are the finding
in the brief excavation of 2008 of evidence of what may have been an
external timber structure surrounding the tower. This is by no means
conclusive and requires further investigation.

That it predates Benedict Arnold is suggested by the finding of a lump
of mortar dated 1450 +/-30.

The style of fireplaces are some two centuries out of date for
construction by Benedict Arnold.

There are celestial alignments built into the tower which are unlikely
to be mere chance. This sugests that the construction of the tower was
intended to do more than ornament someone's ego.

etc ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[John Briggs]

So why did he mention it in his will? ("my stone built Wind Mill")
--
John Briggs

[Eric Stevens]

First, we don't know what "stone built Wind Mill" he referred to. That
it's the Newport Tower is a conclusion at which people tend to leap.

Second, the first mill (Easton's, not Johnston's) had already blown
over. Eastons mill was probably a post-mill (the problems of which I
will go into, if you like). The next step up in the hierarchy of wind
mills would have had a stone base. This could have been built on land
which Arnold already owned. (Mill Street goes right past the site).

If the Newport Tower was on his land he could have been referring to
it. That does not mean that he built it. Nor does it mean that it was
built as a windmill.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:04:32 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:43:26 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>>So why did the Governor of a fledgling colony engaged in intermittent
>>>warfare with the natives decide to build a mill of such an ornate
>>>structure at a time when the colony was still strggling for existence?
>>
>>As a status symbol.
>
>He didn't need a status symbol: he was already the colony's richest
>man.

You really do need to read some English seventeenth century social
history.

Especially the stuff about people displaying wealth.

>>It's up to you to show proof that it's anything different, and you
>>don't have any...
>
>You are making the claim and it's up to you to substantiate it.

Goodness no.

I'm laying down the most likely explanation.

[Bill]

Well yes.

And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it isn't the structure that
already existed.

[Renia]

It's up to you to prove it is.

[Bill]

Nope.

The bloke mentions it in his will.

There are remains of one stone built structure and one stone built
structure mentioned in the documentation.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:39:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I haven't made a claim. I have expressed doubt about somebody elses'
claim. I don't have to prove anything. That's the job of the original
claimant.

I cant quite follow your final sentence. Would you mind unravelling it
for me?

"And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it (what is 'it'?) isn't
the structure (what structure?) that already (at what time was it
'already'?) existed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:25:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:39:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

>

>I cant quite follow your final sentence. Would you mind unravelling it
>for me?
>
> "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it (what is 'it'?) isn't
> the structure (what structure?) that already (at what time was it
> 'already'?) existed.

Sophistry.

[Eric Stevens]

nold mentioned "stone built milne" in his will.On Sun, 14 Jul 2013

21:52:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:10:04 +0100, Renia <re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>On 14/07/2013 15:39, Bill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:04:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:45:48 +0100, John Briggs
>>>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So why did he mention it in his will? ("my stone built Wind Mill")
>>>>
>>>> First, we don't know what "stone built Wind Mill" he referred to. That
>>>> it's the Newport Tower is a conclusion at which people tend to leap.
>>>
>>> Well yes.
>>>
>>> And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it isn't the structure that
>>> already existed.
>>
>>It's up to you to prove it is.
>
>Nope.
>
>The bloke mentions it in his will.

Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
imported with only the major and simple members made on site.

Here is a simple post mill
http://aphs.worldnomads.com/vagabonds/34785/windmill.jpg
The central post is planted in the ground and braced with diagonal
props. A cage is made to hang from the top of the post and the
machinery is assembled inside it.

After several years the original mill blew over in a storm it was
probably replaced with a mill using stone to hold down the base
structure while keeping it clear of the ground.
http://marvaoguide.com/images/stories/telepulesfotok/estonia/Windmills%20in%20Angla%20on%20Saarema%20Island.jpg
is a primitive example.

http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/images/A_heritage/windmills/082051_c4b52094_stevingtom.jpg
is a rather up-market example of a mill with an all-stone base. It is
still a post mill inside but the structure relies on the stones to
keep the timber structure clear of the ground and to weigh it down for
stability. This arrangement quickly evolved into the 'tower' mill.

>
>There are remains of one stone built structure and one stone built
>structure mentioned in the documentation.

That doesn't mean anything. Newport is full of stone-built structures
to the point that the old quarries are now known as the Newport Lakes.
History shows that with such intensive stone usage any old or disused
structures are fair game for stone salvage. We don't know what was
built and later demolished in the early days of the colony.

You might find the following interesting.

http://www.chronognostic.org/daily_logs.php?id=6

http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/2008_ext/nte_2008_voluckas-3x.pdf
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:38:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You are claiming that its the most likely explanation.

Are your thoughts affected by the discovery of the evidence of old
post holes in line with the stone pillars around the towers?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:03:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You claim that asking you to explain what you meant is sophistry?

Are you trying to evade something?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[John Briggs]

Are you aware of the concept of scaffolding?
--
John Briggs

[Eric Stevens]

Oh yes, especially when it comes to the matter of constructing arches
of rubble-masonry.

Not all the sites for putative postholes have been investigated but
the report of the investigation of May 3- June 4, 2008 gives a centre
to centre distance of two of the postholes as 5.3 metres. Assuming
this is the pitch of all 8 holes, that gives a pitch circle diameter
of 13.8 metres.

The tower itself varies in outer diameter by about 1' and has a mean
OD of approximately 22'-9". This is approximately 6.94 metres, almost
exactly half of the diametero of the post hole pitch circle.
Coincidence? I dunno.

In any case, the posts would have been about 3.47 metres aout11'-6")
out from the tower which makes for an astonishingly generous width for
a working platform. After all, they couldn't just dash down to the
local timber merchants and get some scaffold planks.

No, I don't think it was scaffolding.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:43:30 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>nold mentioned "stone built milne" in his will.On Sun, 14 Jul 2013
>21:52:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:10:04 +0100, Renia <re...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/07/2013 15:39, Bill wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:04:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:45:48 +0100, John Briggs
>>>>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So why did he mention it in his will? ("my stone built Wind Mill")
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we don't know what "stone built Wind Mill" he referred to. That
>>>>> it's the Newport Tower is a conclusion at which people tend to leap.
>>>>
>>>> Well yes.
>>>>
>>>> And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it isn't the structure that
>>>> already existed.
>>>
>>>It's up to you to prove it is.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>The bloke mentions it in his will.
>
>Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
>several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
>certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
>imported with only the major and simple members made on site.
>

Look, there's an extant stone built structure of the type described.
It is similar to one built in England at about that time.

It's up to you to prove that the extant structure and the one
mentioned in the will aren't the same by producing concrete (no pun
intended) evidence of another structure of that date.

[Bill]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:18:51 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:03:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:25:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:39:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>I cant quite follow your final sentence. Would you mind unravelling it
>>>for me?
>>>
>>> "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it (what is 'it'?) isn't
>>> the structure (what structure?) that already (at what time was it
>>> 'already'?) existed.
>>
>>Sophistry.
>
>You claim that asking you to explain what you meant is sophistry?

No, I'm saying that your insertions in brackets ask meaningless
questions.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:08:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

The differences are considerable, ranging from Ashlar masonry in one
case and rubble masonry in the other, to dimensional units of
construction, style of chimneys, stellar alignments, dimensional
accuracy, evidence of a surrounding timber structure, etc etc.

I could if I wished (but I don't) construct an argument to the effect
that the Newport Tower is much older than the Chesterton windmill and
that the Chesterton windmill was copied from the Newport Tower. It
doesn't matter which way you argue: there is no evidence to support
such an argument.

>
>It's up to you to prove that the extant structure and the one
>mentioned in the will aren't the same by producing concrete (no pun
>intended) evidence of another structure of that date.

Your logic is doubly faulty. It's not up to me to produce concrete
evidence in support of a claim. I haven't made one.

As far as the existence of another structure which might have been
copied is concerned, have you considered any of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temple-Church-1892.jpg
http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/churches/camsepulch.htm
http://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/templar-church-1.jpg
http://www.best-london-attractions.co.uk/images/TempleChurchLondon_opt.jpg
... and a number of others.

That a Templar round church was the inspiration has been suggested by
a number of people. The this is the inspiration has been made
increasingly likely by the discovery in 2008 of evidence of post holes
around the structure.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:09:29 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:18:51 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:03:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:25:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:39:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I cant quite follow your final sentence. Would you mind unravelling it
>>>>for me?
>>>>
>>>> "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it (what is 'it'?) isn't
>>>> the structure (what structure?) that already (at what time was it
>>>> 'already'?) existed.
>>>
>>>Sophistry.
>>
>>You claim that asking you to explain what you meant is sophistry?
>
>No, I'm saying that your insertions in brackets ask meaningless
>questions.

Only to the extent that I found your original sentence meaningless.

You have deleted the questionable sentence which read:

"And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it isn't the structure that
already existed."

Again I ask "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it - (and what is
the 'it' to which you refer?) - isn't the structure - (what is the
'structure' to which you are referring?) - that already existed -
(what is the time you refer to when you say 'already'?)."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:51:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:08:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>>Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
>>>several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
>>>certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
>>>imported with only the major and simple members made on site.
>>>
>>Look, there's an extant stone built structure of the type described.
>>It is similar to one built in England at about that time.
>
>The differences are considerable, ranging from Ashlar masonry in one
>case and rubble masonry in the other, to dimensional units of
>construction, style of chimneys, stellar alignments, dimensional
>accuracy, evidence of a surrounding timber structure, etc etc.

Stellar alignment?

I rather doubt that seventeenth century Englishmen have much interest
in the stellar alignment of their windmills.

>That a Templar round church was the inspiration has been suggested by
>a number of people. The this is the inspiration has been made
>increasingly likely by the discovery in 2008 of evidence of post holes
>around the structure.

I knew the Templars would crop up in this lunatic discussion at some
point.

[Bill]

OK, easy words time.

If this structure in not a windmill then what is it?

<Suggestions that it is some sort of structure built by the Templars
will be met by unrestricted mocking and a series of personal insults
attacking your sanity, you have been warned>

If the structure mentioned in the will is not the extant structure
there where are the remains of the windmill?

[Erilar]

Eric? 8-). By the way, it's not only faster but less irritating to get
through the list by skipping all his posts. . .

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[John Briggs]

"The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his
lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by
his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he
brings up the Templars."

― Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
--
John Briggs

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:01:13 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:51:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:08:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
>>>>several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
>>>>certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
>>>>imported with only the major and simple members made on site.
>>>>
>>>Look, there's an extant stone built structure of the type described.
>>>It is similar to one built in England at about that time.
>>
>>The differences are considerable, ranging from Ashlar masonry in one
>>case and rubble masonry in the other, to dimensional units of
>>construction, style of chimneys, stellar alignments, dimensional
>>accuracy, evidence of a surrounding timber structure, etc etc.
>
>Stellar alignment?
>
>I rather doubt that seventeenth century Englishmen have much interest
>in the stellar alignment of their windmills.

Well, I tend to agree with you, but somebody did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Tower_%28Rhode_Island%29
"Four of the eight supporting pillars of the tower face the main
points of the compass. In the 1990s, William Penhallow, an
astronomer at the University of Rhode Island, studied the windows
in the tower and said that he found a number of astronomical
alignments. At the summer solstice the setting sun should shine
through the "west" window (actually just south of true west) onto a
niche in the inner wall, next to the "south" window. (This no
longer happens due to urban development and park trees.) Similarly,
the angle from the "east" window through the "west" window is about
18 degrees south of west, which is the southern extreme of moonsets
during what is known as the "lunar minor standstill". The smaller
windows also form alignments, on significant stars. These
alignments could be accidental, but if they were deliberate it
would explain why the pattern of windows seems, according to
Penhallow, "so odd".[32]

>
>>That a Templar round church was the inspiration has been suggested by
>>a number of people. The this is the inspiration has been made
>>increasingly likely by the discovery in 2008 of evidence of post holes
>>around the structure.
>
>I knew the Templars would crop up in this lunatic discussion at some
>point.

If you had known anything much about the subject you would know that
the suggestion of a round church has been around for more than 40
years.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

>? Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum


That's an 'ad hominem', is it not?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:04:19 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:58:01 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Again I ask "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it - (and what is
>>the 'it' to which you refer?) - isn't the structure - (what is the
>>'structure' to which you are referring?) - that already existed -
>>(what is the time you refer to when you say 'already'?)."
>
>OK, easy words time.
>
>If this structure in not a windmill then what is it?
>
><Suggestions that it is some sort of structure built by the Templars
>will be met by unrestricted mocking and a series of personal insults
>attacking your sanity, you have been warned>

I'm not sduggesting that it was built by the Templars but the physical
resemblance is unescapeable.

>
>If the structure mentioned in the will is not the extant structure
>there where are the remains of the windmill?

Probably built into somebody's long demolished house.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

I agree, but in dealing with him I'm discouraging someone coming up
with the same ill-informed ideas.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:52 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:01:13 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:51:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:08:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
>>>>>several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
>>>>>certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
>>>>>imported with only the major and simple members made on site.
>>>>>
>>>>Look, there's an extant stone built structure of the type described.
>>>>It is similar to one built in England at about that time.
>>>
>>>The differences are considerable, ranging from Ashlar masonry in one
>>>case and rubble masonry in the other, to dimensional units of
>>>construction, style of chimneys, stellar alignments, dimensional
>>>accuracy, evidence of a surrounding timber structure, etc etc.
>>
>>Stellar alignment?
>>
>>I rather doubt that seventeenth century Englishmen have much interest
>>in the stellar alignment of their windmills.
>
>Well, I tend to agree with you, but somebody did.
>

Then they're remarkably ill informed.

>>>That a Templar round church was the inspiration has been suggested by
>>>a number of people. The this is the inspiration has been made
>>>increasingly likely by the discovery in 2008 of evidence of post holes
>>>around the structure.
>>
>>I knew the Templars would crop up in this lunatic discussion at some
>>point.
>
>If you had known anything much about the subject you would know that
>the suggestion of a round church has been around for more than 40
>years.

Not a point.

It most certainly isn't an English seventeenth century church.

Making it any earlier needs alien space bats.

[Bill]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:56:34 +1200, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:04:19 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:58:01 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Again I ask "And what's more it's up to YOU to PROVE it - (and what is
>>>the 'it' to which you refer?) - isn't the structure - (what is the
>>>'structure' to which you are referring?) - that already existed -
>>>(what is the time you refer to when you say 'already'?)."
>>
>>OK, easy words time.
>>
>>If this structure in not a windmill then what is it?
>>
>><Suggestions that it is some sort of structure built by the Templars
>>will be met by unrestricted mocking and a series of personal insults
>>attacking your sanity, you have been warned>
>
>I'm not sduggesting that it was built by the Templars but the physical
>resemblance is unescapeable.
>>
>>If the structure mentioned in the will is not the extant structure
>>there where are the remains of the windmill?
>
>Probably built into somebody's long demolished house.

Bullshit.

Remember I live in England and take an interest in such things.

If there ever was another stone structure there would be traces of it
somewhere.

These things are not hard to find.

Aerial photography at dawn followed by a survey using ground
penetrating radar would certainly find any old structures.

[Michael Kuettner]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:45:13 +0200, Michael Kuettner
> <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:02:11 +0200, Michael Kuettner
>>> <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:16:55 +0200, Michael Kuettner
>>>>> <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:53:09 +0200, Michael Kuettner
>>>>>>> <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:48:57 +0100, Simon Pugh
>>>>>>>>> <ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- snip ----
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You still are a dishonest swine.
>>>>>>>> Anybody interested can google for Anatase and the Vinland map.
>>>>>>>> There you'll see Ingwer and her lapdog Eric in full swing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will see me asking questions. Accepting opinions on the basis of
>>>>>>> authorities on high has never been my style. Of course some would-be
>>>>>>> authorities do not like being questioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still are a dishonest swine.
>>>>>> Your so-called "questions" were never questions at all, but always
>>>>>> defence of fringe-theories.
>>>>>> "Bronze-age shipwrecks" is another example of your "questions" and your
>>>>>> state of Inger's lapdog.
>>>>>> You really seem to think that you could gain some credibility by fading
>>>>>> memories ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly not from yours. Here is what Google recovers of that wreck
>>>>> of an argument http://tinyurl.com/m847pvv
>>>>>
>>>> Yep. Certainly not from mine.
>>>> And certainly not from Kenneth Towe's memories about you and Inger.
>>>> In the special context of bronze-age shipwrecks we might also consult
>>>> Brian M. Scott, who left after you and Inger finally went beyond reality.
>>>> Now, let's see :
>>>> <http://www.mombu.com/science/archaeology/t-bronze-age-shipwrecks-3768106.html>
>>>>
>>>> The dishonest swine in full squinking mode.
>>>
>>> What? When I wrote:
>>>
>>> See http://www.premierelect.co.uk/images/bacd02.jpg for a
>>> chart of the English Channel and Dover Straight. Few people
>>> would regard the two as being distinct. You seem to be being
>>> excessively picky again.
>>>
>>> .... or when I wrote:
>>>
>>> The claim that the English Channel does not include the the
>>> Dover Strait is nonsense. If you doubt me, you should find out
>>> whether or not the channle ferries use Dover etc. You should
>>> also look up 'channel ports' and you will find many of them
>>> line the Straits of Dover.
>>>
>> In full obfuscation mode.
>> The original claim from Inger were some wrecks which noone but her
>> could find anywhere.
>> Then you ran interference once again as shown above.
>
> None of that is apparent from your citation.

It's interesting that you don't even deny it, you dishonest little swine.


>>
>>> You should read your references before you post them.
>>>
>> You should stop denying your role as Ingers Lapdog, you dishonest swine.
>>
>>
<snip>
>>>> I do, you dishonest swine ?
>>>> Just ask Brian M. Scott about your role in "bronze-age shipwrecks", you
>>>> half-educated little twerp.
>>>> Just google Ken Towe, Anatase and your dim-witted comments, you
>>>> "open-minded" wanker.
>>>>
>> Ah, no reply here.
>> Not really surprising.
>
> I see no point in dragging other people into the argument.

Because each of those people has shown that you're a dim-witted,
dishonest swine ?


>>>> Disregards.

And disregards again.

[Michael Kuettner]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:57:23 -0600, Odysseus
> <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <ptknq8tsa7753i8td...@4ax.com>,
>> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>

>>
>>>> On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>>>>>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>>

>> [...]
>>
>>>>> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
>>>>> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
>>>>> blank then.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I was never pro map although many thought I was. It's just that I was
>>> not anti map either which inevitably, to many, made me pro map.
>>>
>>> It's nice to have evidence that the map was not mentioned in 1892. It
>>> would be even nicer to encounter a mention from that time that the
>>> particular page was blank. That would nail the argument for good (at
>>> least until someone suggests the 1892 documentation is fake :-).
>>
>> Does not the bit I didn't snip above fulfill that wish?
>>
>> The passage referred to is "Floyd [...] believes that Pérez Pastor
>> examined the manuscripts at the Madrid exhibition, and that the priest's
>> description can be used to show that the very piece of parchment on
>> which the map was later drawn was present in the volume at the time."
>
> Its a fine point but the fact that the priest did not mention th
> existence of the map is dot definitive evidence that the map was not
> there. That's why the matter could be put to it's final resting place
> if the priest had specifically mentioned that the relevant page was
> blank.
>
I rest my case.
The moronic little Eric has reacted just like I had told you, Odysseus.
A little note for the sane here :
How should a priest mention that something isn't on a blank page ?
That's our little moron in full squink mode.
"A blank page in a book was not empty because a priest some centuries
ago hasn't mentioned that there was no later forgery on a blank page".
That's how Stevens "thinks".
For the sane readers :
If there had been anything on that page, the priest would have mentioned it.
When someone examines an old manuscript, he takes care to record what is
in it; especially when it's a compilation.

Little Eric still doesn't understand the basics of research and methodology.

[Michael Kuettner]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT), robert...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Eric, I always considered you a friend... and a fairly sensible one, capable of defending even hopeless positions. With politeness and respect.
>> As for Seppo... well, that's quite another matter! And as for Inger, the less said the better!
>>
>> Eric, you have often been cruelly betrayed by the insanity and vileness of those who have 'supported' you position on certain things, which has unfortunately and (IMO unfairly sometimes) led to savage personal criticism.
>>
>> I appreciate that it is a brave and reckless fellow who sticks up for the KRS these days, and as an Englishman who tends to like underdogs (and lost causes), you have my admiration.
>>
>> Good luck to you... I'm afraid you need some now and then... and my best reguards!
>
> Thank you for the kind words.
>
> My interests are driven by two things. First I am curious.

Nope. You're not curious.
You're a kook.

> Second I do
> not have the kind of memory required to engage in academic hurly burly

Nope.
You do not have the kind of brains needed for academics.
That leaves you as an idiot who sneers at things he doesn't understand.
But we've known that for a long time ...
You're an idiot who has fallen for some Atlantis theories and
you haven't got the mental toolkit to question those believes.

> over ever finer details of that which is known. New discoveries are
> nearly always made around the edges and that is where I tend to look.
>
You've gone over the edge ages ago.


> I currently hold no opinion on the KRS. I thought that at one stage
> Nielsen and Wolter were in the process of making a case for
> authenticity but now they have fallen out I don't know enough of the
> facts to reach any conclusion. At present I have no opinion.
>
Ah, two kooks failed to come up with "proof" and suddenly little Eric
has no opinion anymore.
The dishonest little swine ...

> I don't think anyone really knows who built the Newport Tower. I don't
> think any of the major explanations will withstand close examination.
>
Of course we know.
Arnold.
We've been through this.

> Vowelless Ogham (can you remember that far back?) remains a mystery.

It doesn't.
There is no vowelless Ogham. It wouldn't make any sense, you moron.

> The late Larry Athy had collected approximately 100 authenticated

The late Athy is thankfully dead and buried. One kook less.
Is his grave marker in vowelles Ogham ?

> (i.e. they were real, and not modern fakes) examples of the script
> from around the world.

Oh, he had ?

> Vowelless Ogham does seem to exist but I don't
> know of any authorities on Ogham who have seriously examined it.

Maybe because they have to do something else beside reacting to the
phantasies of some sub-educated morons ?

> Larry Athy had a statistical argument that certain of the scripts employed a
> language in common but I could never get anyone knowledgeable to
> examine it seriously.
>
A language in common ? Which was always written _with_ vowels in Europe
but suddenly without vowels anywhere else ?
Yeah, sure.


> Although not within the scope of this news group, I have to mention
> anthropogenic (carbon) climate change. Initially I was a believer but
> quickly became a sceptic. The facts that are now emerging seem to
> suggest that my scepticism has been justified. At the same time, I am
> developing a theory of my own about the possibility of +10,000 year
> climate change arising from an as yet unsuspected cause: hunting.
>
Do us the favour and publish that in alt.usenet.kooks.

> Oh look! There is another wild goose on the horizon!
>
You wouldn't recognize a goose if it shat on your head, according to
your record here.

[Michael Kuettner]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:48:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:26:34 +1200, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:18:17 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:06:43 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:23:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:35:41 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>>>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:59:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the structure was in Western Europe there wouldn't even be a
>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep: it would be regarded as medieval. I'm not the first to say that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goodness no, it would be regarded as 17th century and so a fair bit
>>>>>>>> younger than my local pub and not uncommon at all...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rubble-cored perhaps but the absence of any attempt at ashlar
>>>>>>> stonework is characteristic of only the earlier stonework. The
>>>>>>> stonework of the arches is particularly primitive and suggests only a
>>>>>>> minimum acquaintance with architectural tradition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well yes, it was built by the locals.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why?
>>>>
>>>> Why build a windmill?
>>>>
>>>> Easy, to grind grains.
>>>>
>>>> Why build a stone one?
>>>>
>>>> Easy, as a status symbol.
>>>>
>>>> This stuff isn't rocket science, it's only history.
>>>>
>>>> History has patterns.
>>>
>>> But the town already had a mill (Johnston's as I recall). This mill
>>> later blew down and had to be replaced in a hurry. Even if it was
>>> circular (which it is not) the structure of the Newport Tower is not
>>> what one would build as an emergency replacement.
>>
>> So what?

>
> So why did the Governor of a fledgling colony engaged in intermittent
> warfare with the natives decide to build a mill of such an ornate
> structure at a time when the colony was still strggling for existence?

> Further, what is the evidence that he actually did this?
>
Just to put an end to moronic Eric's "argument" :

(a) Look at the still-to-be-finished airport in Berlin.
Berlin is bankrupt. So why build an airport when there is already an
airport ?
(b) Johnston's mill blew down a little later.
What can we conclude ?
Berlin, again. There's already an airport but it's reached the end of
its lifetime. So a new airport is planned and built which fails because
of incompetence and the desire to build a status symbol.

Result : The old airport is patched up and whether the new one will be
finished remains to be seen ...
Either the rest of Germany will pay for the fucking Berliners or the
project will die because the lobby behind it dies.

Another example would be the Austrian nuclear plant Zwentendorf.
It was built but never saw action.
Future Archaeologists will be slightly annoyed with that monument -
it looks exactly like a nuclear plant, but was never used.

[Michael Kuettner]

Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip squinking>

> You might find the following interesting.
>
> http://www.chronognostic.org/daily_logs.php?id=6
>

No, we won't.
Those fucking Arizona Yanks don't even know the Greek
language from which they "derive" their name.

Look at <http://www.chronognostic.org/about.html>
for a good laugh.
gnost(os) - to know and chronos - of time.
This bullshit is copyrighted by them...

Now let's look at the board of directors :

<http://www.chronognostic.org/board_members.html>

A broad (Janet Barstad) with absolutely no credibility
and her husband (also without credibility).
<snort>
Supported by some army veteran who spent the time of the Korean war in
Northwest Greenland - Devereux. With a degree in political science
<snort>
Then we have Haverington - a "specialist in Medieval Studies" who just
happens to have some degrees in English literature.
How the fuck does one graduate "Phi Beta Kappa" ? By drinking a lot ?
The rest of her "career" is similar unimpressive...
But read for yourselves and don't drink anything carbonated - it hurts
the nose when snorting ...
To sum it up : 4 people who would be better off if they had founded a
gardening society - their "knowledge" could have been adaequate for that ...


> http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/2008_ext/nte_2008_voluckas-3x.pdf
>
But that's the kind of "source" little Eric uses.
Plain dumb or fucking moron ? You decide.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:06:54 +0200, Michael Kuettner
<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:57:23 -0600, Odysseus
>> <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ptknq8tsa7753i8td...@4ax.com>,
>>> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> On 02/06/2013 14:42, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Pugh <ne...@mrzsp.demonx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> A link to MapHist on the subject
>>>>>>> http://www.maphist.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=360
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> It is noteworthy that the parchement on which the map was
>>>>>> drawn is mentioned in the Pastor text, but it was evidently
>>>>>> blank then.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I was never pro map although many thought I was. It's just that I was
>>>> not anti map either which inevitably, to many, made me pro map.
>>>>
>>>> It's nice to have evidence that the map was not mentioned in 1892. It
>>>> would be even nicer to encounter a mention from that time that the
>>>> particular page was blank. That would nail the argument for good (at
>>>> least until someone suggests the 1892 documentation is fake :-).
>>>
>>> Does not the bit I didn't snip above fulfill that wish?
>>>

>>> The passage referred to is "Floyd [...] believes that P�rez Pastor

>>> examined the manuscripts at the Madrid exhibition, and that the priest's
>>> description can be used to show that the very piece of parchment on
>>> which the map was later drawn was present in the volume at the time."
>>
>> Its a fine point but the fact that the priest did not mention th
>> existence of the map is dot definitive evidence that the map was not
>> there. That's why the matter could be put to it's final resting place
>> if the priest had specifically mentioned that the relevant page was
>> blank.
>>
>I rest my case.
>The moronic little Eric has reacted just like I had told you, Odysseus.
>A little note for the sane here :
>How should a priest mention that something isn't on a blank page ?

Dim wit! I didn't suggest could have mentioned that the map wasn't
there. I said, and I quote " .. the matter could be put to it's final

resting place if the priest had specifically mentioned that the
relevant page was blank."

Maybe the subtlty of the distinction is beyond you?

>That's our little moron in full squink mode.
>"A blank page in a book was not empty because a priest some centuries
>ago hasn't mentioned that there was no later forgery on a blank page".
>That's how Stevens "thinks".
>For the sane readers :
>If there had been anything on that page, the priest would have mentioned it.
>When someone examines an old manuscript, he takes care to record what is
>in it; especially when it's a compilation.
>
>Little Eric still doesn't understand the basics of research and methodology.
>

Drongo!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:16:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:52 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:01:13 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:51:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:08:54 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Arnold mentioned a "stone built milne" in his will. By that date
>>>>>>several mills had been built in Newport. The first was almost
>>>>>>certainly a 'post' mill. The mill machinery was almost certainly
>>>>>>imported with only the major and simple members made on site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Look, there's an extant stone built structure of the type described.
>>>>>It is similar to one built in England at about that time.
>>>>
>>>>The differences are considerable, ranging from Ashlar masonry in one
>>>>case and rubble masonry in the other, to dimensional units of
>>>>construction, style of chimneys, stellar alignments, dimensional
>>>>accuracy, evidence of a surrounding timber structure, etc etc.
>>>
>>>Stellar alignment?
>>>
>>>I rather doubt that seventeenth century Englishmen have much interest
>>>in the stellar alignment of their windmills.
>>
>>Well, I tend to agree with you, but somebody did.
>>

Here Bill deleted a large quote on the subject.

>Then they're remarkably ill informed.

The people who built stellar alignments into the church were
ill-informed? What were they ill-informed about?

>
>>>>That a Templar round church was the inspiration has been suggested by
>>>>a number of people. The this is the inspiration has been made
>>>>increasingly likely by the discovery in 2008 of evidence of post holes
>>>>around the structure.
>>>
>>>I knew the Templars would crop up in this lunatic discussion at some
>>>point.
>>
>>If you had known anything much about the subject you would know that
>>the suggestion of a round church has been around for more than 40
>>years.
>
>Not a point.

Yes it is, if you are discussing the history of the discussions re the
Newport Tower.

>
>It most certainly isn't an English seventeenth century church.
>
>Making it any earlier needs alien space bats.

Do you have a mental block?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

That's the ad hominem to end all ad hominems.

At least they are doing something constructive, and under qualified
archaeological supervision too.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

rOn Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:18:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

That's already been done, or didn't you know?

http://www.acmrs.org/about/online-resources/NewportTower
"In October, 2003, we sponsored a ground-penetrating radar survey of
the park. Early Sites Research Society had done a GPR study in
1994, but its plots were impossible to read, since 3-D imaging was
not yet available."

In any case, if the stones were reused, there is no need for them to
be reused in the immediate vicinity. All that would be needed to make
them attractive is that they be nearer than the Newport quarry (which
is some distance away).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

Because air traffic is increasing and the old airport is too small and
no longer meets current requirements.

>(b) Johnston's mill blew down a little later.
>What can we conclude ?
>Berlin, again. There's already an airport but it's reached the end of
>its lifetime. So a new airport is planned and built which fails because
>of incompetence and the desire to build a status symbol.

Your analogy fails. The airport was not built in the final years or
immediately after a war. Nor was it built in an emergency situation.

>
>Result : The old airport is patched up and whether the new one will be
>finished remains to be seen ...
>Either the rest of Germany will pay for the fucking Berliners or the
>project will die because the lobby behind it dies.
>
>Another example would be the Austrian nuclear plant Zwentendorf.
>It was built but never saw action.
>Future Archaeologists will be slightly annoyed with that monument -
>it looks exactly like a nuclear plant, but was never used.
>

With applications to close up to 30 coal burning power plants in the
next few years, it is quite possible that Zwentendorf may yet be
commisioned.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

Moron yourself. There are quite a few ancient scripts which lacked
written vowels. Hebrew for example.

>
>> The late Larry Athy had collected approximately 100 authenticated
>
>The late Athy is thankfully dead and buried. One kook less.
>Is his grave marker in vowelles Ogham ?
>
>> (i.e. they were real, and not modern fakes) examples of the script
>> from around the world.
>
>Oh, he had ?
>
>> Vowelless Ogham does seem to exist but I don't
>> know of any authorities on Ogham who have seriously examined it.
>
>Maybe because they have to do something else beside reacting to the
>phantasies of some sub-educated morons ?
>
>> Larry Athy had a statistical argument that certain of the scripts employed a
>> language in common but I could never get anyone knowledgeable to
>> examine it seriously.
>>
>A language in common ? Which was always written _with_ vowels in Europe
>but suddenly without vowels anywhere else ?
>Yeah, sure.

Yeah. Just like Phoenician which, being derived from Hebrew, lacks
vowels. Between them Hebrew and Phoenician cover much of the
Mediterranean and the Middle East.

>
>
>> Although not within the scope of this news group, I have to mention
>> anthropogenic (carbon) climate change. Initially I was a believer but
>> quickly became a sceptic. The facts that are now emerging seem to
>> suggest that my scepticism has been justified. At the same time, I am
>> developing a theory of my own about the possibility of +10,000 year
>> climate change arising from an as yet unsuspected cause: hunting.
>>
>Do us the favour and publish that in alt.usenet.kooks.
>
>> Oh look! There is another wild goose on the horizon!
>>
>You wouldn't recognize a goose if it shat on your head, according to
>your record here.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens