Date: 19 Apr 2007 07:54:51 -0700 From: Gareth <ghughesarchnospamcom> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
On 16 Apr, 22:40, still me <wheeled...nospamo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:33:20 -0000, Gary Fritz <fritz...nospamrii.com> > wrote: > > >* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is > >widely regarded as a fraud. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers > > First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for > anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real > research. > > If you trace the arguments "disproving" the Zenos, you find that, as > with most matters of historical discussion, the arguments of the later > researchers are all based on the work of earlier researchers. With the > Zenos, the key definable issue ends up back at a dating question > concerning the original document's production date. An examination of > that argument shows that the original researchers work is flawed and > the earlier date is correct. I confess to not recalling the specifics > of the dating issue. I can dig out my notes some time. > > I do agree that there is no conclusive evidence that the voyage they > speak of can be shown to be to the "new world" and it may in fact be > voyages to Greenland or Iceland . However, it does demonstrate > Venetian knowledge (Southern Europe) of Norse journeys. Most > historians agree the vikings at least reached New Foundland. Southern > European knowledge of that makes it highly unlikely that Columbus > would not have known of these voyages. > > >* The "Norsetower" atNewportRI has been archaeologically investigated. > >The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts > >were found in the soil when they excavated around it. I don't know what > >Verrazano's and Mercator's maps were talking about, but according to the > >evidence it couldn't have been thetower. > >http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/other_artifacts... > >ewport > > Well, the argument is that the mortar that was tested was mortar used > in repairs in the late 1600's - the building is acknowledged of having > been used during those times. Regardless, if that is not the Norsetower, we still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most > historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with > their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when. No, the maps are on such a scale that it's impossible to say with any certainty what is indicated, or whether it's at Newport or some other place along the east coast. It definitely isn't shown as a little tower on arches , exactly on the site of the Newport Tower.
