Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[lokiblossom]

With all of that said.....still no proof that any of the ships visited oak island.

No proof, only a premise with some circumstantial evidence along with knowing they very easily could have.

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Roadhse2]

39.30 meters, (129 feet) long x 3.67 meters (12 feet) wide x 2.08 meters (7 feet) deep is not very much vessel for hauling anything....open deck for oarsmen? In 7x12' where would any cargo go much less ballast to keep it upright and counteract the 52 foot tall mast? Then...108 oarsmen in a 129 foot boat? if they used the whole length as open boat that is still just over 2 foot of area for each oarsman side by side and staggered seating...sounds like no room for water stores, food or cargo of any kind....Doesnt sound like this boat would make it out of harbor...

 

[lokiblossom]

39.30 meters, (129 feet) long x 3.67 meters (12 feet) wide x 2.08 meters (7 feet) deep is not very much vessel for hauling anything....open deck for oarsmen? In 7x12' where would any cargo go much less ballast to keep it upright and counteract the 52 foot tall mast? Then...108 oarsmen in a 129 foot boat? if they used the whole length as open boat that is still just over 2 foot of area for each oarsman side by side and staggered seating...sounds like no room for water stores, food or cargo of any kind....Doesnt sound like this boat would make it out of harbor...

The replica of the Gokstad a 9th century Viking ship named the Viking was 23.8 meters long (almost 16 meters shorter), and traveled from Norway to Chicago in the late 19th century. I guess it did make it out of the harbor, eh?
And did you happen to read the first sentence in my post?

"its [the Templar Order]own fleet of galleys which transported horses, grain, arms, pilgrims and military personal"

Sounds like they may have had larger vessels than my example. I'm betting the Venetians may have built more than one design, being the great ship builders that they were.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Roadhse2]

Your sarcasm is noted...though the point is...108 oarmen..shallow draft boat with a very narrow beam....no room for supplies to make a long voyage or ballast to hold the ship upright in a force wind on a 52 foot mast...

60 foot sloop i was crew on...7 people total, 14 foot beam, tons of ballast plus a keel...stand up room down below with bunks, galley, head, and with underfloor storage...and an engine compartment...

So it is not the length of the boat i am asking you about...but with your figures....and such a narrow beam and shallow draft boat, where would ballast, water, food, and any accomidations be? Plus dual masted with the high one at 52 foot...that is a lot of sail without a large fixed keel, or tons of ballast somewhere in that 7 foot depth...

My own 24' trailer sailor has 1600 lbs of lead ballast in a dropped keel with a 7'9" beam and 5 foot underdeck height, 22 foot mast, storage etc...and 6 people are crowding it...

So, to me, those figures stated do not add up...108 rowmen plus other crew in such a shallow draft and narrow beam.

I also used to have a 30 foot german made whaler rig...8 foot beam, bare bones for cross sea voyages...packed to the gills to make the longer part of voyages with supplies, water, food...and that was just 3 people making the voyage...

So I am not disputing the voyage could be done...but that the boat you gave dimensions for would be a poor choice to do it in with so many crew members...that all needed supplies to make it....the dynamics also of the large masts with shallow draft and such a narrow beam...make it suspect to me...As a coastal transport with one or two days passage yeah...months at sea...i dont see that happening..

Also noted in reading about the Viking ship Gokstad.

"Excavated in 1880, the Gokstad had been called the most beautiful ship ever built.
The Viking is approximately 78 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 6.5 feet high"

Notice the wide beam....10 foot wider than the other boat you gave dimesnions on? Much easier to stock goods and also to resist the overturn force of winds on a sail...and needed less ballast as it was under less sail. And while a third shorter, carried a maximum crew of 40....so many less supplies needed in a third less space, length wise...but twice as much beam... than for a 108 crewmen..

 

[lokiblossom]

So, to me, those figures stated do not add up...108 rowmen plus other crew in such a shallow draft and narrow beam.

So I am not disputing the voyage could be done...but that the boat you gave dimensions for would be a poor choice to do it in with so many crew members...

Also noted in reading about the Viking ship Gokstad.

"Excavated in 1880, the Gokstad had been called the most beautiful ship ever built.
The Viking is approximately 78 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 6.5 feet high"

Notice the wide beam....10 foot wider than the other boat you gave dimesnions on? Much easier to stock goods and also to resist the overturn force of winds on a sail...and needed less ballast as it was under less sail. And while a third shorter, carried a maximum crew of 40....so many less supplies needed in a third less space, length wise...but twice as much beam... than for a 108 crewmen..

A keel was noted in the specs and I think the difference in beam from the Venetian ship was 5 ft. not 10 ft. I wondered about the number of oars also but doubt they were all used at the same time. Also note the depth of the Venetian was some 6 inches more. Your example of a 60 foot sloop (must have been a fine ship) is only 2 feet wider than the Venetian design.
Also to remember, the open water sections of the voyage I premise is only about 250 miles (I was corrected that one section was 260 miles), this why it was possible for the Vikings to do it.
Another point that could be made is that these figures were a translation, not sure how well that worked.
I have a friend who sailed with two others from Hawaii to San Francisco on a 32 foot sloop, cramped but they had a good time.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Dave Rishar]

The crossing of the Atlantic was done much earlier by the Vikings and very often with families which attests to the relative safety of the crossing.

Was it that the crossing was relatively safe, or was it that life sucked so badly for them where they were that they were willing to gamble? There was no inexpensive arable land left in Scandinavia and life in Iceland was downright brutal, so if you wanted your own farmstead and you weren't wealthy and/or had no chance of inheriting one, and you also wanted to be around people culturally similar to yourself, you were probably going to have to go to Greenland. (Not that many did, mind you. Those settlements weren't exactly cities.)

Or you simply may not have had a choice. You'll note that the man remembered for finding Vinland, Leif Erikson, was only in that part of the world because he'd been outlawed in Norway and Iceland. He was quite literally running for his life. Sailing west into the Atlantic was a dangerous move, but returning to any part of Scandinavia would have been a guaranteed death sentence eventually.

There are enough mentions of ships meeting a bad end, or saving the sailors of ships that met bad ends, in the Sagas to conclude that the journey was not all that safe. You needed to leave at the right time, you needed a good ship, and you needed a knowledgeable captain. Even with all of that, if your luck didn't hold, you might not make it.

To no one in particular: If we're talking about the Norse crossing the Atlantic, we shouldn't be discussing longships. As Roadhse pointed out, a boat with a large length-to-beam ratio, large sail, small draft, and low freeboard on the north Atlantic is basically a shipwreck looking for a place to happen. They would probably have used knarrs for this, which have the much more seaworthy ~3-to-1 length to beam ratio and a deeper (but still relatively shallow!) draft. Freeboard was still lower than a modern sailor would prefer, but it's quite likely that a few men were detailed for bailing duties, with more chipping in if there was an emergency.

The construction of Norse boats is a fascinating subject. They did some pretty weird stuff that we simply won't do today, but they had their reasons for doing it that way even if they didn't understand the math behind it. What we see today as design flaws were intentional compromises, and one can learn a lot about what they wanted to do with their boats by studying those compromises.

I've never sailed on a reproduction, but I've read and have been told that it's goddamn scary for modern sailors at first, as they shouldn't work as well as they apparently do. Reportedly they're relatively safe and handle well once one gets the knack for it. I would cross the Atlantic on one, but only if I had a satellite phone, full Gore-Tex, and a chase team within a kilometer or two of me at all times. I suspect that the oars were used more frequently than we suspect, as that amount of sail on even a 15 foot beam on the open ocean scares the hell out of me.

 

[lokiblossom]

Was it that the crossing was relatively safe, or was it that life sucked so badly for them where they were that they were willing to gamble? There was no inexpensive arable land left in Scandinavia and life in Iceland was downright brutal, so if you wanted your own farmstead and you weren't wealthy and/or had no chance of inheriting one, and you also wanted to be around people culturally similar to yourself, you were probably going to have to go to Greenland. (Not that many did, mind you. Those settlements weren't exactly cities.)

Or you simply may not have had a choice. You'll note that the man remembered for finding Vinland, Leif Erikson, was only in that part of the world because he'd been outlawed in Norway and Iceland. He was quite literally running for his life. Sailing west into the Atlantic was a dangerous move, but returning to any part of Scandinavia would have been a guaranteed death sentence eventually.

There are enough mentions of ships meeting a bad end, or saving the sailors of ships that met bad ends, in the Sagas to conclude that the journey was not all that safe. You needed to leave at the right time, you needed a good ship, and you needed a knowledgeable captain. Even with all of that, if your luck didn't hold, you might not make it.

To no one in particular: If we're talking about the Norse crossing the Atlantic, we shouldn't be discussing longships. As Roadhse pointed out, a boat with a large length-to-beam ratio, large sail, small draft, and low freeboard on the north Atlantic is basically a shipwreck looking for a place to happen. They would probably have used knarrs for this, which have the much more seaworthy ~3-to-1 length to beam ratio and a deeper (but still relatively shallow!) draft. Freeboard was still lower than a modern sailor would prefer, but it's quite likely that a few men were detailed for bailing duties, with more chipping in if there was an emergency.

The construction of Norse boats is a fascinating subject. They did some pretty weird stuff that we simply won't do today, but they had their reasons for doing it that way even if they didn't understand the math behind it. What we see today as design flaws were intentional compromises, and one can learn a lot about what they wanted to do with their boats by studying those compromises.

I've never sailed on a reproduction, but I've read and have been told that it's goddamn scary for modern sailors at first, as they shouldn't work as well as they apparently do. Reportedly they're relatively safe and handle well once one gets the knack for it. I would cross the Atlantic on one, but only if I had a satellite phone, full Gore-Tex, and a chase team within a kilometer or two of me at all times. I suspect that the oars were used more frequently than we suspect, as that amount of sail on even a 15 foot beam on the open ocean scares the hell out of me.

All good points Dave, but a couple of things. At one time there were over 400 farms and several thousand settlers in Greenland. Leif Erickson never lived in Norway and wasn't banished from Iceland. Erik the Red (Leif's father)was banished for three years and did return to Iceland with stories of a Green-land to the west. The actual discoverer of Vinland was Bjarni Herjolfsson, although Leif probably founded L'Anse aux Meadows. You are correct that the Knaars were preferable for the open Ocean but the Longships were still often used for that purpose. The replica of the Gokstad (a longship) was also a longship. Certainly in modern terms the voyage would be considered dangerous, but I think that given the period "relative safely" is an appropriate term. I also would welcome such a trip with similar precautions. Good discussion Thankz

Cheers, Loki

 

[Honest Samuel]

With all of that said.....still no proof that any of the ships visited oak island.

I guess that you did not received the pirates emails: "We landed at Oak Island and buried treasures. Sign: Your friend, Captain Kidd."

 

[Dave Rishar]

All good points Dave, but a couple of things. At one time there were over 400 farms and several thousand settlers in Greenland. Leif Erickson never lived in Norway and wasn't banished from Iceland. Erik the Red (Leif's father)was banished for three years and did return to Iceland with stories of a Green-land to the west. The actual discoverer of Vinland was Bjarni Herjolfsson, although Leif probably founded L'Anse aux Meadows. You are correct that the Knaars were preferable for the open Ocean but the Longships were still often used for that purpose. The replica of the Gokstad (a longship) was also a longship. Certainly in modern terms the voyage would be considered dangerous, but I think that given the period "relative safely" is an appropriate term. I also would welcome such a trip with similar precautions. Good discussion Thankz

The one time that I rely on my memory instead of verifying, I make a fool out of myself. Good catch!

I don't remember the populations of the settlements in Greenland and I unfortunately don't have the time right now to dig them up, but I'm willing to accept your numbers for the sake of conversation. Allow me to counter with a town near where I live - Poulsbo, Washington. The population is currently around 9,000 people. When I was in high school 20 years ago, it was 6,000 people. In 1890, there were maybe 100 people in what's today called Poulsbo. In 1880, there would have been nobody. Weigh this against the Greenland settlements which were around for several centuries. When we're talking about hundreds of years when people married young and had plenty of children to help around the farm, one can't assume that every resident moved there from somewhere else. The reality of the situation is that many of them were probably born there, and that populations can change very quickly over a few generations, even without outside help. (BTW, I specifically chose a small town in an unimportant location for a reason. Seattle has only been around for half a century longer than Poulsbo and has a population of over half a million, but that is a city and there are reasons for large numbers of people to move there.) If history has taught us anything, it's that a small population in a favorable location can become a large (too large) population surprisingly quickly. (Quick theory: we know that the Greenland settlements eventually shifted from a meat-based diet to a fish-based diet over time, and this is often attributed to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and poor agricultural practices. As resupply from Scandinavia would have been sporadic at best, could this not have resulted from an expanding population literally eating its livestock faster than they could reproduce?)

Yes, a longship could make that journey, but it was not the right tool for the job. I suppose that some people would have done it simply because they had no other option, but it wouldn't have been preferred. Ships moved livestock to Greenland with settlers, or so the Sagas say. I wouldn't want to try that on a longship. Explorers that did not have to cross an ocean would certainly have used them, as this was arguably the best design in the world at the time for short trips and coastal raiding. As you doubtless know, the Vikings were not feared because they raided - everyone did that. They were feared because they did this in places where that (supposedly) couldn't be done, which left no one feeling safe. All of those compromises which made their ships bad for transoceanic travel made them excellent for inland sailing and portages.

At the risk of thread drift, I have no reason to believe that Leif had anything to do with L'Anse aux Meadows, but I suppose that he could have. I'm unconvinced that L'Anse aux Meadows is definitely Vinland. I understand what the Ingstads were thinking, but I'm inclined to go with the literal definition of the name. We don't know for certain that they traveled any further south than L'Anse aux Meadows, but we can be pretty sure (due to archaeological evidence) that someone, at some point, was quite a bit further south than that and had contact with them. The simplest explanation is that it was one of their own, but that can't be proven.

 

[lokiblossom]

The one time that I rely on my memory instead of verifying, I make a fool out of myself. Good catch!

I don't remember the populations of the settlements in Greenland and I unfortunately don't have the time right now to dig them up, but I'm willing to accept your numbers for the sake of conversation. Allow me to counter with a town near where I live - Poulsbo, Washington. The population is currently around 9,000 people. When I was in high school 20 years ago, it was 6,000 people. In 1890, there were maybe 100 people in what's today called Poulsbo. In 1880, there would have been nobody. Weigh this against the Greenland settlements which were around for several centuries. When we're talking about hundreds of years when people married young and had plenty of children to help around the farm, one can't assume that every resident moved there from somewhere else. The reality of the situation is that many of them were probably born there, and that populations can change very quickly over a few generations, even without outside help. (BTW, I specifically chose a small town in an unimportant location for a reason. Seattle has only been around for half a century longer than Poulsbo and has a population of over half a million, but that is a city and there are reasons for large numbers of people to move there.) If history has taught us anything, it's that a small population in a favorable location can become a large (too large) population surprisingly quickly. (Quick theory: we know that the Greenland settlements eventually shifted from a meat-based diet to a fish-based diet over time, and this is often attributed to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and poor agricultural practices. As resupply from Scandinavia would have been sporadic at best, could this not have resulted from an expanding population literally eating its livestock faster than they could reproduce?)

Yes, a longship could make that journey, but it was not the right tool for the job. I suppose that some people would have done it simply because they had no other option, but it wouldn't have been preferred. Ships moved livestock to Greenland with settlers, or so the Sagas say. I wouldn't want to try that on a longship. Explorers that did not have to cross an ocean would certainly have used them, as this was arguably the best design in the world at the time for short trips and coastal raiding. As you doubtless know, the Vikings were not feared because they raided - everyone did that. They were feared because they did this in places where that (supposedly) couldn't be done, which left no one feeling safe. All of those compromises which made their ships bad for transoceanic travel made them excellent for inland sailing and portages.

At the risk of thread drift, I have no reason to believe that Leif had anything to do with L'Anse aux Meadows, but I suppose that he could have. I'm unconvinced that L'Anse aux Meadows is definitely Vinland. I understand what the Ingstads were thinking, but I'm inclined to go with the literal definition of the name. We don't know for certain that they traveled any further south than L'Anse aux Meadows, but we can be pretty sure (due to archaeological evidence) that someone, at some point, was quite a bit further south than that and had contact with them. The simplest explanation is that it was one of their own, but that can't be proven.

Great post Dave, and yes I also believe Vinland was farther south than L'Anse aux Meadows. There are a couple of theories as to the actual meaning of the word Vinland, but I personally like Vine-land and this alone puts it a little more south. As we are talking about the medieval warm period I have always premised Vinland to be Nova Scotia, and IMHO this is where the Norse in Scotland sent the Templars.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Robot]

Are the Lagina Brothers within a “Stones Throw” ?

Of locating where the Freemason’s Treasure Vault is located!



For those who may have missed it.

In The Curse of Oak Island Season 3 Episode 11 following Laverne Johnson’s clues, an 8 inch drilled stone was located 171 feet due north from where he had estimated the Stone Triangle was located.



http://projectfreetv.so/watch/?aff_id=867445

My Theory is, this is where the Freemason’s Surveyed Stone 1 is located, from the Star Kochab, and points to where the entrance of the Treasure Vault is located.

The Laginas now only need to find the Stone at Cep 35 to cross triangulate with the Stones from Nolan’s Cross and arrive at the entrance to where the Freemason’s entered the Treasure Vault.

 

[Robot]

Could the Shugborough Monument be Francis Bacon’s Tomb Stone?

On the grounds of Shugborough Hall in Staffordshire, England, sits an 18 Th-Century monument known as the Shepherd’s Monument.

The Shepherd’s Monument was crafted around 1762 by Flemish sculptor Peter Schee and commissioned by Thomas Anson, a member of the British Parliament along with his brother George Anson, Admiral of the Fleet, member of the Royal Society of London, and devote Freemason.

George Anson obtained his great wealth from his share of the plundering of Spanish Galleons and used this wealth to restore his family's Estate.

It was said that he met and planned the creation of this monument as a steganography, (the art and science of hiding messages in plain sight) with his cohorts Grand Master Washington Shirley, George Keppel, Grand Master Benjamin Franklin and a most mystical figure named the Count of St. Germain.

I believe they designed this monument as an Old World Tomb Stone for their Revered Friend and rightful King of England...Sir Francis Bacon.

The Monument contains a relief, depicting a copy of a Nicolas Poussin painting.

The title of this Nicolas Poussin (a Knights Templar) painting is "Et in Arcadia ego" translated as "Even in Arcadia, there am I".



The monument shows one of the Shepherd's thumbs covering up the "R" in "Arcadia" which now translates as:

"Even in Acadia (Nova Scotia), there am I (Francis Bacon)"



This cipher text has stumped historians and decoders for hundreds of years.



Several famous individuals have attempted to determine the meaning of the inscription, including Charles Darwin, Charles Dickens, and Josiah Wedgewood.

I believe our Treasure Net Forum Member...Lokiblossom may have translated its intended purpose!

(Quote Paraphrased)
"My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia
By: Lokiblossom
Post # 31 Oct 26, 2015
The Shugborough Monument itself, created in the middle of the 18th century, as most already know, is very similar to the 2nd of Nicolas Poussin's painting of "Shepherds in Arcadia" mentioned in post 7 of this thread. The major differences are that Shugborough is a relief and the scene is basically reversed from Poussin's version. But one outstanding feature common to both is that the figures are mulling over a specific part of the lettering that reads "Et in Arcadia Ego" which can be loosely translated to "Also in Arcadia I". The questionable letter seems to be the "R" in Arcadia with one of the Shepherds in the Poussin pointing directly to it and in the Shugborough he is pointing to the word (albeit with a broken off forefinger) "in" while if the thumb was not also broken off it would be almost completely hiding the letter "R". In both works the theme seems to be that the message is transferred to Acadia from Arcadia. One must also wonder why these two particular digits were broken.

The next clue is the letters "D" and "M" at each end of the coded message below the Shugborough relief. What needs to be taken into perspective here is the navigation backgrounds of both of the Anson brothers and at the same time understand that seconds of a degree of latitude or longitude were hardly used in 18th century navigation. These facts would lead one to the conclusion that the "D" stands for "degrees" while the "M" stands for "minutes" or minutes of a degree. A known degree and minutes of latitude along with a known degree and minutes of longitude would be a certain position on the Earth or the "coordinates" of a location. Without the use of "seconds" it would take 4 numbers to supply these coordinates. It is also important to note that prior to the latter half of the 18th century longitude, the position East or West could not be accurately determined while at sea. Only with the use of an accurate timepiece would this become possible. There can be no doubt that the solution to the Shugborough code is the coordinates of a location, but how to read it and where does it take us?
A=1, B=2, C=3, O=15, U=21, V=22, S=19, now you have to create 4 numbers from 8,= 36/ 34/ 23/ 44 ( read latitude first from right to left (reversed, as the relief tells us), longitude still reversed but read left number (degrees) first, very simple, yes! D and M, degrees and minutes.
The solution for the Shugborough code is the coordinates, 44 degrees 32 minutes north by 63 degrees 43 minutes west" (Quote Paraphrased)

When I input these coordinates to my Stellarium Program, plus a minor adjustment for the change to the Prime Meridian from the Bradley Meridian and add Bacon's Clues of the month, day and time, I obtain a perfect Freemason Celestial Map showing the location of Sir Francis Bacon's Tomb, The Money Pit, and the Freemason's Treasure Vault.

 

[Ryano]

Robot, Loki - it's posts like these that keep me reading TreasureNet

 

[Not Peralta]

Amigo,( TRUTH)NP

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Misfire.....

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Robot, Loki - it's posts like these that keep me reading TreasureNet

What, the màke beleive story telling attempting to keep general interest in things that don't exist on oak island?

 

[lokiblossom]

What, the màke beleive story telling attempting to keep general interest in things that don't exist on oak island?

Don't beleive, that's not important, but believe!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Robot]

"The (Oak Island) X-Files?"

What, the màke beleive story telling attempting to keep general interest in things that don't exist on oak island?

I WANT TO BELIEVE!..."X" MARKS THE SPOT!



"TO FIND THE TRUTH, YOU MUST BELIEVE"

 

[Robot]

What small piece is this?...That makes up such a large picture!

Like a Jigsaw Puzzle, where one small piece is needed to complete the larger picture, many pieces of the puzzle for the solution to the Mystery of Oak Island lie unnoticed.

While researching how the "Ball and Chain" was used by the British forces against the Americans in the Revolutionary War, this small piece showed why it was important for the Old World Freemasons to transfer their great wealth to Oak Island.



Men, like Master Freemason Benjamin Franklin encouraged support to rid the New World from the tyranny of these Kings and Queens who believed in the Divine Right of Kings, that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm.

King George III of Great Britain brought on The American Revolutionary War and declared the American forces traitors in 1775, which denied them prisoner of war status.

He believed the Colonial American soldiers and all who supported them to be traitors and not entitled to POW status and would treat them as unlawful combatants and subject them to execution on the battlefield if captured, as what happened at the Battle at Drake's farm during the Forage War.

It was not until the Continental Army's capture of a British army at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, which resulted in thousands of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Americans that this effect further dissuaded British officials from hanging Colonial prisoners, despite the abandoned hopes of a settlement by this stage, as they feared reprisals on prisoners being held by the Americans. Neither policy, however, prevented the British from treating common American military members and sympathizers being held prisoner far more harshly than the standards of the day for POWs allowed.

The British during the Revolutionary War, made Long Island NY an important Penal Colony with the use of numerous old ships as their instrument of incarceration.

During the American War of Independence, more Colonist Americans died as prisoners of war on British prison ships through intentional neglect than died in every battle of the war combined
The war claimed 11,500 men and women due to overcrowding, contaminated water, starvation, and disease on prison ships anchored in the East River; the bodies of those who died were hastily buried along the shore.

"The heat was so intense that (the hot sun shining all day on deck) they were all naked, which also served well to get rid of vermin, but the sick were eaten up alive. Their sickly countenances, and ghastly looks were truly horrible; some swearing and blaspheming; others crying, praying, and wringing their hands; and stalking about like ghosts; others delirious, raving and storming,--all panting for breath; some dead, and corrupting. The air was so foul that at times a lamp could not be kept burning, by reason of which the bodies were not missed until they had been dead ten days."

During the American Revolutionary War, George Washington and his Continental Army put the laws of war into practice regarding prisoners of war unlike their opponents who did not. The Americans took a different view, believing that all captives should be taken prisoner. On September 14, 1775, Washington, commander of the Northern Expeditionary Force, while at camp in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote to Colonel Benedict Arnold that:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause . . . for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

In 1776, with The Declaration of Independence, a Cheer was heard around the World by these Freemasons with their "Blessing" for America.

At the end of the War, preparations were made to transfer their great wealth from Oak Island, to help promote the independence of this New World and the Freemason’s organization.

Unfortunately

Like the opening of "Pandora’s Box", when the Freemasons opened their Treasure Chests to launder the gold through the Banks of America and England a new "Curse" was released.



In the same year as America's cry for Independence, in May 1st, 1776, a new organization arose and began to prosper from these proceeds laundered through their Banks, one more powerful and sinister than that which was hoped to have been left behind!

 

[Dave Rishar]

In 1776, with The Declaration of Independence, a Cheer was heard around the World by these Freemasons with their "Blessing" for America.

At the end of the War, preparations were made to transfer their great wealth from Oak Island, to help promote the independence of this New World and the Freemason’s organization.

What wealth?