HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Charles Kos

"Inconvenient Picture" reveals TRUTH about Tower of LONDON

655 ratings | 29843 views
At least one of the back towers was added in later times. The Normans repaired and added to a heavily damaged Roman Tower which was built between 250AD and about 300AD, reflecting its late Roman design. Look at this quote I just found in Gildas, regarding towers built in Southern England! I am unsure if it actually relates to the Roman Tower of London... but it would seem that preventing ships sailing up the Thames would resist a Barbarian attack! "18... The Romans, therefore, left the country, giving notice that they could no longer be harassed by such laborious expeditions, nor suffer the Roman standards, with so large and brave an army, to be worn out by sea and land by fighting against these un-warlike, plundering vagabonds; but that the islanders, inuring themselves to warlike weapons, and bravely fighting, should valiantly protect their country, their property, wives and children, and, what is dearer than these, their liberty and lives; that they should not suffer their hands to be tied behind their backs by a nation which, unless they were enervated by idleness and sloth, was not more powerful than themselves, but that they should arm those hands with buckler, sword, and spear, ready for the field of battle; and, because they thought this also of advantage to the people they were about to leave, they, with the help of the miserable natives, built a wall different from the former, by public and private contributions, and of the same structure as walls generally, extending in a straight line from sea to sea, between some cities, which, from fear of their enemies, had there by chance been built. They then give energetic counsel to the timorous natives, and leave them patterns by which to manufacture arms. Moreover, on the south coast where their vessels lay, as there was some apprehension lest the barbarians might land, they erected towers at stated intervals, commanding a prospect of the sea; and then left the island never to return." http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1949/pg1949-images.html This sounds a lot like Rome in the time of Aetius, in the 450s. Rome had lost Africa to the Vandals a generation or so earlier and was struggling to maintain the remainder against a horde of barbarians with a much reduced income (only 40,000 pounds of gold per annum), which could only maintain an army at maximum of 30,000 soldiers, far too small. Even so 2/3 of its annual income was required for this! By this stage, the Roman emperor only wished to reside in Ravenna, not liking the squalor of Rome. I believe the tower possibly went up in the late 200s or the 300s, at about the same time the walls around Chichester. Any later and the Romano-British would have had to have built it for themselves and I am unsure if the economy would have been powerful enough for such an endeavour. In addition there was a building there called the Arx Palatina. (Palatine Fortress). There was another Arx Palatina on the other side of Londonium on the river bank, where Blackfriars now is. I believe this was converted into Blackfriars Monastery but I would have to look into this further. Important links! New MAIN SITE: http://www.charleskos.com/ Old School Website http://charles.kos.id.au/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CharlesKosPhD/ Book https://www.amazon.com/Search-Origin-Pyramids-Lost-Gods/dp/0987420828/ Videos collected together http://www.whatisgiza.com/ My publishing website: http://plusultrabooks.com.au/
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (242)
Brock Swann (4 days ago)
Sorry for posting on an old video buuuuuutt... the romans were notorious for building stuff everytime they stopped anywhere. Even when just marching armies around they would build full on little forts every time they would stop anywhere.
Sommatore Nero (7 days ago)
Surely, Romanesque arches were a Norman feature of the 11th and 12th centuries, and only in later centuries did the pointed arch (Gothic style) become a feature.
robert kelly (14 days ago)
What an eye opener! Very clever.
fluffytom82 (17 days ago)
There are many problems with your "findings" (as in most of your videos). 1) those arched windows aren't Roman, they're Romanesque (which perfectly fits the 1000-1200 period of construction) 2) the brickwork is not Roman at all 3) the stone used in the part which you call "Roman" is from Caen in France and wasn't brought by the Romans 4) the Roman walls and towers were indeed incorporated in the tower. They make out the South and East sides of the fortifications. Not the white tower.
Grh Haddybow (18 days ago)
I feared when seeing the 1st of your video's that you were just some spoof kook joke that I would only be able to engage in my least favourite way of abuse and demeaning insults. But this one I think you have made a quality video with educational value, well done, maybe just stay away from Australian vid's as that's where i found issues making me think you failed sand pit and finger painting
Gerdie Albers (19 days ago)
I think the building is half as big as it seems...the right side of it is FAKE....!!
super Jack (25 days ago)
Wow....That Saxon-church really is incredibly old. Probably built before the invention of the Saxon-phone....or, of course, as we now would call it: the Saxophone. I do believe it was also the Saxons that invented the very first fruity mixed-drink for 23 yr. old bar-whores and club-sluts..... ...Ordered-on many a Friday and Saturday night to this very day; the ever-popular beverage: "Saxon-the-beach"
Mark Roberts (1 month ago)
Very clever mate,well done for having a clear and different look on things.
Nathan Sellars (1 month ago)
the windows in the tower were added in the 17th century by sir Christopher renn
Nathan Sellars (1 month ago)
its common knowledge that the tower of London was built on the site of an old roman fort.....plz exsplain why would people go through all the trouble of covering this up, like what would anyone gain from that
L Hargreaves (1 month ago)
Good point about the population numbers. There seem to be major discrepancies in older populations compared with those now.
VKVDM (2 months ago)
You theory certainly resonates Truth !!
Anon B (4 months ago)
Celtic tradition does say the tower was around before the English invaded.
michael lovely (4 months ago)
Charles I like ur videos and facts ,opinions and that u always leave room for it to be not what u said it was but instead be something completely different but please please please only two unbelievables a video. I know it will be hard cuz u average 10 to 15 each video but it's getting in the way of enjoying ur videos and if it keeps being said I will have to watch other videos instead and give up on us. thanks
michael lovely (4 months ago)
Charles I like ur videos and facts ,opinions and that u always leave room for it to be not what u said it was but instead be something completely different but please please please only two unbelievables a video. I know it will be hard cuz u average 10 to 15 each video but it's getting in the way of enjoying ur videos and if it keeps being said I will have to watch other videos instead and give up on us. thanks
Daniel Goddard (4 months ago)
utter twaddle
John Saunders (4 months ago)
I think the ancestors of afro Americans built it as they did everything else!
david daly (5 months ago)
just stop making that fucking noise, kmm, kmm, kmm
Jeremy Stockdale (5 months ago)
The tower of London was restored and extend earlier upwards. Conspiracy rubbish. It's sad that people take notice of this. Symmetry don't happen in the tower because of alterations earlier in it's life
Danny Broughton (5 months ago)
I think you need to get a job
Kunz Klingsor (6 months ago)
Printed with the negative reversed, making the left appearing on the right.
LEWI MCPHERSON (7 months ago)
well done...spot on.
Michael Greenslade (7 months ago)
henryvagincourt (8 months ago)
Bullshit again, The different colour stone means nothing, clue in the name "White Tower" being white washed most of it 's life. The Tower was altered try looking up Anthony Salvin, your making comments about a building that looks nothing like when it was first built, interesting, but not factual. You forgot Alien's, and area 51, for you know sod all about Norman architecture.
Peter Ward (8 months ago)
Ravennevar 88 (8 months ago)
There is plenty of evidence of the actual building time period and even more which shows the Roman settlement that predates the Tower running from beside the White Tower all the way up to Tower Hill. Fake conspiracy theory. 0/10, try harder.
Chris Dolan (8 months ago)
I found you points on the tower intriguing, given the picture on the coin, and it's late Roman looking architecture, adding to that its position, in the corner of the Roman fortifications. Certainly worth looking into. Also the church in Bradford on Avon. But the rest is dubious at best, and why, even if all this were true, would it mean there was a big catastrophe? Like most of your vids, some interesting, some dubious!
Hayley Neill (9 months ago)
It's obvious it has been rebuilt and reconstructed over the centuries.it says so in the history, so awful video!
Backwoodz Baby (9 months ago)
@Charles Kos what is that above the tower on that coin you showed? Initially I thought it was part of the inscription on the coin but the location of it is indicative of it being part of the image. Please explain
John Kennedy (10 months ago)
I drove past there today and was looking to see some of the features mentioned in your vidio and was surprised when I saw one of the towers is round i have never noticed the differences before.
Enthusiast Australia (10 months ago)
Very interesting video. Great work
Rob White (10 months ago)
lmao because the Rothschild schools actually taught anything trolololol yea how to follow orders that was about it... Rediscovering the world how awesome thank you educated scholars now we get to do things all over again in the right way... well done holding humanity back must be so proud.... the damage was prolly Colchester army fighting back... great vids dude love them. the real mystery is why are you not running our education system??? your brilliant :)
orange70383 (10 months ago)
Did they decide against the use of real history books where you went to school, just kidding'
Adrian Gilbert (10 months ago)
I think you make some very good points. A lot of what is labelled 'Saxon' architecture in Britain is actually Romano-British.  Of course the Romans had a castle in London. But they didn't found London. It was already there when they arrived and called Trinovantum or 'New Troy'. You don't build a copy of Troy without a citadel do you. Where would you build it? On the Brynwen or 'White Hill', which is where Brutus the Trojan is supposed to be buried and where the White Tower stands now. So is the White Tower Norman? Easy to check: where did the stone come from to build it. If it is from Caen in Normandy, then you know they di. If it is from Britain itself, then the chances are that they didn't. I agree though that the cement is the real giveaway for a Roman construction. They really understood the medium of cement and concrete. Just look at Pevensey Castle.
Mona E. (10 months ago)
The Comet which hit Britain in 562 A.D. !!
Frans Pretorius (10 months ago)
Charles "alleges that" at least one of the........ Conjecture.
Dr. Elizabeth Martin (11 months ago)
Fascinating........LOTS of lies built into the timelines of "history"............a whole area of scholarship. cheers
CENTURION2501 (11 months ago)
Challenging and very interesting. At first, I was saying; "what? no, no this is just crap." But then I really started looking with a fresh perspective and now I'm left thinking you may be right, at least to a degree. Thanks for challenging my view of history, great video. The church inside The White Tower looks to be of a Byzantine design, Eastern Roman Empire. Very similar to some I've seen in Turkey and Cyprus.
Bremner's Ghost (11 months ago)
King Alfred reused a lot of Roman structures and defences when he developed the Burgh's to counter Viking raids, especially the former Roman cities sited at Ports, Fords or Shallows on rivers
Bremner's Ghost (11 months ago)
have a look at this http://www.intriguing-history.com/anglo-saxon-burhs-map/ I found it very interesting
Norway Minnesota (11 months ago)
Oops...aquiducts...my bad.
Norway Minnesota (11 months ago)
The arches remind me of Roman Aquidocs.
catfishale asad (11 months ago)
i do think to not question what victorians wrote about history is kinda silly. remember hsitory is always political or ideological . carry on doing what you do mate . whats your take on london being pre roman city . whats your take on the pre roman kings of britain ? was king lud(d) a real king ? i think so after all where does ludgate get its name ? also how did london get its name ? was it called something before ? im also keen on the idea that the group of islands got rich very rich from the making of bronze in the bronze age . where copper and tin were within spitting distance . no where else in the ancinet word did this happen. tin is rare very rare . i know there were deposits in italy ,france ,eastern europe . where did the egpitians get there tin from ?>
Oliver Von arx (11 months ago)
You definitely are on to something here!!! In the beginning of the video i said to myself the normans built more like in gothic style; the tower - which i visited as a child - looks ABSOLUTELY ROMAN!! Brilliant mate!! That’s the reason why i love your channel!!
Artourious (11 months ago)
The de population of the dark ages, are we talking about the plagues brought into england..? which hassened the end of Romano British resistence against the saxons.
Artourious (11 months ago)
Charles if it helps. Its pronunced Ele not Eli spelt Ely. Art.
OsamaBinObama (11 months ago)
That building looks like shit anyway
TheDoooden (1 year ago)
The tower at the end looks like the old towers of the Roman city walls of Trier in Germany
THINKER43 (1 year ago)
Sir, have you been into the cellar of York minster which is a similarity with at least one of the styles of arch
lesley mitchell (1 year ago)
Are you not aware that the Romans built fortifications around London? The towers shown on the coin are the towers to one of the gateways.
m.joanne Telasco (1 year ago)
So interesting.
El Snurdley (1 year ago)
Can I have the name and number of your dealer ?.
cdk3law (1 year ago)
Charles, I agree with you that the 3rd right side tower was not present as on the coin you showed. I would further agree that this 3rd tower was built overtop and/or added later...add that if you look closely at the rockwork going up a few feet above the odd little window (on 3rd right side tower) you can almost see where the new rock was added and started. Another great vid sir!
Nancy Volker (1 year ago)
you might be on to something here.. I can't say that I have ever given it any notice before this was pointed out.
Rob Crawford (1 year ago)
London was taken over by Rome back in the day.
Kenneth M. Price Jr. (1 year ago)
Love the way you shredded the Tower of London. Wow! You really point out some absurd reconstructions and labels. These have got to be the worst of times for government-funded "archaeologists", who must continue to embrace these obvious inconsistencies. One tall glass of fluoridated water every morning will help start their day.
Alex Visser (1 year ago)
A meteor came over england in the 4? Century. Total destruction.
Samantha Larner (1 year ago)
Have you ever visited York ?
Neil Farrow (1 year ago)
An interesting video but there are some misconceptions about period architecture that lead the idea astray. If you are ever in the UK I'd be happy to take you round a few places. Firstly, 'Romanesque' was a style that was copied from the Romans and improved upon by both Saxon and Norman builders. The Romans also copied the Greeks, but that doesn't make half the buildings in Rome, Greek. Materials were routinely salvaged from earlier buildings, thus you can get the appearance of an earlier style, sometimes. The coins you highlight could well refer to other buildings or be merely stylised, or even made of wood - we would have no idea. The tower itself could have been influenced by a Roman building stll standing at that time either in Britain or in Europe, or even from Rome itself. That still makes it a contemporary copy, not a Roman building. Castles were functional buildings, so aesthetics and symmetry took second place to purpose (defence, imprisonment, govt etc). Buildings can be tentatively dated from archaeology around the foundations, or weathering of stonework. A good example of this would be Brixworth Church, Northamptonshire, England. This church LOOKS Roman, but archaeology shows that the foundations were begun in the 8th Century. The materials, and maybe even the design, were salvaged / copied from Roman buildings in nearby Leicester. You have miss-dated the West end of Ely Cathedral. Parts of that building were indeed started in the late 11th Century, as you say, but the West end you mention was made at least a hundred years later. Repairs / additions or rebuilding is usually easily seen, so if you see a plain, undisturbed wall or whatever, you can be confident (but not 100% certain) it has not been altered. Many churches and castles had extensions and demolitions of parts. You would often see an arch blocked in a wall if that is the case. There are countless examples in the UK, therefore dating a building from a just a photograph is problematic, as on the other side of the building may be the evidence of another date. THanks for the video though, I do like to see challenges to the 'known orthodoxy, As I say, if you are ever in the UK.....
catfishale asad (11 months ago)
i thought the romans got rome off the etruscans. ? so im not sure how much you can pin to the romans . remember they were the curatiors of history after destroying much or claiming to be the creators of it . much like the greeks who invented maths but didnt at all
dafodilist (1 year ago)
You are so thick, every thing is historical fact, a building that old has had many repairs ect I suggest you go to a college or just get some education and stop getting all your information from the internet.
the problem with history books is they are all just the lies that they want people to know to hide there criminal actions against humanity in the past and WTF is wrong with your fn neck because your breathing and swallowing issues is making it impossible for me to breathe. Go get it checked out dude because you definitely have a problem I can here from here in Canada.
ROONEYgr8 (1 year ago)
Hi Charles, if you are looking for a date of the destruction of the tower of London prior to its rebuilding then i think you should historically investigate the comet of 562 ad..Britannia burned from 7-11 days straight and the country was devoid of all life for approximately 7 years following this catastrophe, Check Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett for a much more detailed forensic look at the hidden history of Britannia and the crime against humanity of deleting our rich tapestry of ancient history. I personally believe the education system was created to obfuscate our true place in history and to sell the lie that has been foisted upon the British and global populous Keep up the good work brother
Craig Biddles (1 year ago)
The Normans built the tower of London on the east side of former londinium fortifications closer to the river the Romans built thier fort on the west side of there walls a Wikipedia search for londinium will explain better and it says the Roman fort had circular towers as a gate house and square towers on the corners
lez briddon (1 year ago)
My guess, it had 2 towers, and was an entry, like the bar walls in roman walls.
TheWitnessOfCacti (1 year ago)
WW2 Damage?
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
Not sure!
Kerry Price (1 year ago)
Love these videos Charles ! Thank you !
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
Thanks, Kerry!
stephen willis (1 year ago)
what the fuck you talking about it is not roman it is all cymru that was when cymru run Britain
Loren Shelby (1 year ago)
You sure have a very vivid imagination. Way too many wild guesses, to be interesting.
patrick robinson (4 months ago)
you explain it sound like a sheep
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
No Name (1 year ago)
The tower of london has been damaged many times thoughout history the last of which was during ww2 when it was bombed by ze germans
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
Oliver Cromwell (1 year ago)
Another stuppid aus.
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
bipola telly (1 year ago)
many things attributed to the Romans, aren't.... this does look "Roman" tho'....
Dan Charron (1 year ago)
to the victors goes the spoils, as Rome fell, they left much of its empire to be claimed by others. you have many clues and I see your point. lets not forget that Rome was not built in a day. Take a look back in time and see that Rome has been built on its own Ruins. Take a look at the old pictures from the now underworld excavations they are doing in Rome. more clues... How about check out the Castles, many where added on to other pre-existing structures. it was not like today where the bulldozers and heavy machines can haul away the stones... So the questions are where are the Roman buildings?
O Comin (1 year ago)
I don't see any evidence of the application of 'Hermanutical Hygiene' to your research. Ely, as in its cathedral, is pronounced with a silent 'e' not 'i' Also, cathedrals across Europe were construction projects that spanned decades, sometimes many decades, so here, as in Ely, we see the transition from Norman to Gothic. The Normans copied Roman Architecture, of which the 1/2 round arch is a main feature, which was imported from Northern France, by the Normans.The Gothic Arch is a progression in design. Not here to write a dissertation on the subject, so please be mindful that this is worthy of such and cannot be addressed in a short video on YouTube. Another thing on the issue of symmetry, this as an architectural principle was peculiar to Pure Greek Architecture, NOT Roman! Now go and find out from an accedemic, what such a study would entail.
Latrell Jones (1 year ago)
Great channel bro, keep up the good work.
Tom Fuller (1 year ago)
An intersting theory.
Apelles_ of_Kos (1 year ago)
Interesting video! I think the wonky add on's give the building charm haha
Chang Noi (1 year ago)
Romanesque design was prominent in Europe from around 900 AD to 1200 AD that fits in well with the date of construction of this building. Romanesque still persists today in church architecture like the very common basilica design of Catholic churches. I'm in South Korea and looking out my window at a Catholic church I watched being built 10 years ago in classic Roman basilica design. So what's your point anyway? So what if the Romans built the Tower of London the Normans later modified? You think you're right and the guide books wrong? It's about you being smarter than everybody? You have to say why this is important. It;s like saying "I know Cleopatra had blonde hair." So? Probably not true but what's your evidence and how does that change anything? By the way "Ely" is pronounced "Eelee" as in Ron Ely the actor who played Tarzan on TV in the 60's who is still with us at age 79 in 2017. Pretty much everybody knows this but you. I've listened to your poorly researched videos and you're not only ignorant but pretty annoying. I actually have a degree in Ancient Classical Art and Architecture so I know how wrong you are and lack real academic training to support your hypotheses. Stay in Australia mate. Maybe you can guess aliens built some ant hills or the Glass house mountains in Queensland near where I lived while working as a real Assistant Curator at the Queensland State Museum in Brisbane years ago. Stop the bullshit but I know you won't because you make money from click bait spreading misinformation.
Andrew Payne (1 year ago)
Nothing like the coin....the towers are round and there is a wall between the towers other than the main wall. It's a stretch mate.
john sullivan (1 year ago)
yes it looks roman i cant think of any other norman castle like it
Bob Bobson (1 year ago)
"A clearly Roman - or German - looking building"... What a joke, stop deluding the impressionable with this drivel, please. Why not look at some actual Romanesque buildings - like the interior of Durham Cathedral, instead of all these remodelled buildings with Gothic and Perpendicular elements bolted on?
DKDiddley (1 year ago)
There is a scene in Shakespeare's Richard III where Edward and Buckingham are discussing the Tower of London. Edward says "Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?" and Buckingham replies "He did, my gracious lord, begin that place; which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified."
DKDiddley (10 months ago)
Thanks, Doc. Shakespeare's quote suggests, to me at least, that in the mid 1500's it was not controversial to suppose that the Romans had started the Tower and that later generations had expanded upon it. I'm not sure why this idea has become controversial today.
Adrian Gilbert (10 months ago)
Buckingham was wrong. Julius Caesar was only in the London area for a few weeks (if that) in 54BC. He didn't have time to build anything. But London was already there when he arrived.
Dr. Elizabeth Martin (11 months ago)
Excellent, DK!!!! There is a whole field of scholarship about the false timelines/tales..............This is a stunning comment. Brilliant
Website guy (1 year ago)
Cuts rose scents (1 year ago)
It will have a dome built on top soon and renamed the The Dome of London Mosque. The minarets may be repaired.
lee Lewis (1 year ago)
Yep your spot on it's Roman and pre-Roman, my father is a stonemason, and def your onto something
lee Lewis (1 year ago)
Your right, there are inconsistencies in it.
DRTY D (1 year ago)
so if I went to another country and say a style of  architecture and like it then went home and built something in that style youre saying its obviously built by other people in a different time? so if I build a pyramid today, it must mean Egyptians came here and built it for me or it was built thousands of years ago? I'm not following your argument, whats your point?
Chris Lancaster (1 year ago)
Kudos, on the observation. I'm an American but very familiar with Roman history, building style's and architecture and yes I concur fully on that the tower of London is of Roman construction and modified or repaired by the Normans.
jkfrehsif (1 year ago)
The truth, hidden in plain sight! Proves people believe what they are told, not what they see with their own eyes. Fascinating, will have to go back there, last saw it over 50 years ago, so no real memories. Thank you for your efforts. I only know the basics of architecture, but with what you have demonstrated it's bleeding obvious, well done!
TheEndTimes (1 year ago)
At 12:30ish you just stop in the middle of an anecdote and the video cuts.
Edward Kiel (1 year ago)
Why are you expecting symmetry from an early/high medieval castle? In these early castles you never get perfect symmetry, because when it came to fortifications, medieval people were functionalists. It's not really until later in the middle ages that you get fortifications that are meant to be visually stunning through symmetry, and usually they sacrifice some of their strength for it. A building like this would have been built in many campaigns, and during each campaign the fashions or preferences may have changed a little. Of course with these monumental building, the building process would have been a bit of a learning process too, reportedly the Tower of London was one of the very first big stone keeps, and so working out how best to configure the small details would have been something that came with experience. Not to mention that often a building like this may have two or more master-masons overseeing the project at different times. Even cathedrals from this time are never symmetrical, neither the facade nor the transepts, and almost always you'll find that the nave has a different style than the choir. Now, I have no vested interest in the date of the Tower of London, but there is nothing that I see in it's architecture that is particularly Roman and un-Norman, the very concept of a castle is in fact quite un-Roman, i.e. a palace that is simultaneously a fort. Your point about Ely cathedral is frankly ludicrous, since nobody (except you) is claiming that facade was build only 50 years after the Tower. That tower, and that porch you showed pictures of date to between the 13th and 14th centuries. Now, the earliest phase of building at Ely cathedral does indeed date to shortly after the Tower, and if you examine those earliest portions, you'll find architecture very similar to that of the Tower, although the Tower is somewhat cruder in it's details and decorations. Again with Winchester cathedral, construction did indeed start at the time of the building of the Tower, and the first phase ended some 14 years later, how ever since then much has been added and changed, and the picture you show is of the nave which was rebuild and redecorated under William of Wykeham in the 14th century. Again, if you were to examine the oldest surviving architecture in Winchester cathedral, e.g. the crypt, you'll find architecture very similar to that of the Tower. I like how you look at a structure, one which has obviously lost it's whitewashing and decorations, and conclude from the rough state it's currently in how old it is, just by your general feeling of things. You can not date buildings chronologically by how ruined they are. E.g. Coventry cathedral is not older than the Pantheon, just because the Pantheon is in a better state of preservation. Also, architecture is not necessarily a progression of simple to complex, e.g. just because the walls of the chapel in the Tower are plainer than some Roman architecture, does not mean that it's older than the Roman architecture. And I'd point out that in it's day the chapel would have been whitewashed, and the walls then adorned with murals, as was common to medieval church-buildings. I would also point out that just because the Tower seems to have been built in a short time, that does not mean that anyone's saying it's hasn't been substantially modified since.
Killerspieler0815 (1 year ago)
Good Video ... its noting unusual, that structures are much older than these remote controlled "archeologists" want us to believe
Noomi Olsson (1 year ago)
It's amazing how no historians have noticed any of this.🤔
Nostradormouse (1 year ago)
Saxons built almost completely in wood.
U24B6 (1 year ago)
Thought provoking ideas. And presented in wonderful Aussie style. This bloke isn't bullshitting. Nice one.
Committee MeMeD (1 year ago)
looks a bit moorish too.
Interesting video Charles and I agree with a lot of your ideas here. One thing that also backs your theory up to some extent is the enigmatic Roman Concrete. They built to last, inspired in my opinion by their interaction with a certain group of pyramid builders. Which is also where I think their concrete may have come from.
OnlyOneTyping (1 year ago)
shit, can't people learn how to build like other people?
Whirled Publishing (1 year ago)
Continue to cling to the fake historic timeline and your ability to realize the truth about our humanity history - and the truth about the history of our Earth - will be impossible. Shall we imagine the 1% that has siphoned into their control over 99% of the world's wealth wants the public to know the true history of our Earth and of humankind? Shall we imagine the 1% that controls the publishing houses, the printing of schoolbooks and college textbooks wants the public to know the truth about chemistry, physics, geology, glaciology, etc.? If you want to get your head on straight, do a search for 1400's illustrations of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Damascus, Aden, Calcutta, London, etc., then do a search for 1500's illustrations of those villages, then the 1600's illustrations of those villages, then the 1700's illustrations, then the 1800's illustrations. If you arrange the illustrations of each of those villages in chronological order, you'll notice the residences inside the stone walls were increasing in number every 20 to 30 years as a result of the babies being born, growing up and having children of their own, then you can extrapolate the population backward in time for each of the villages. If that doesn't blow your mind, study the architecture in each of those illustrations. If that doesn't blow your mind, read the captain's logs going back hundreds of years. If that doesn't blow your mind, study the maps of the Antarctic Circle of the 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's, then study the illustrations and photographs from the early Antarctic expeditions, then study the video footage of Antarctica from the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's. Then you should be clued in to some significant truths about our Earth. Then you can do a search for illustrations of mountains in the 1400's, 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and 1800's and your mind should be more willing to see the evidence.
0623kaboom (1 year ago)
send your ideas to time team ... see if you can get them to check in to it as a time team episode ... heck in 3 days they could most likely more accurately define and date the various reconstructions and constructions.
Charles Kos (1 year ago)
Hmmmmmmmm, interesting idea! I am going to start to contact shows with proposals.
whatwhyandwhos (1 year ago)
dude your mind is an amazing thing
caveymoley (1 year ago)
This was extremely interesting. Thank you.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.