My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[lokiblossom]

...and ,Loki, all those quotes do not mention or support that the Templars ever made a voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia, just superficial quotes stating that the Templars possessed galleys and ships.

Firstly, lets determine why you consider these quotes by esteemed Templar historians "superficial"?

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

But you have nothing as solid as that at Oak Island. It's not "blood from a perpetrator". Its vegetable fiber that might be coir, that might have been used by someone although there is no evidence it actually was, that is 2,500 miles away from where the "perpetrator" had any business being.

I'm no lawyer but I'd take that case to defend a client if that was all the evidence against him.

Its vegetable fibre that has been positively tested to be coconut fibre several times, the first by the foremost Botanist in the world Dr. J.H. Soper, lastly the summer of 2019. Its been constantly dated to before the 14th century by reliable institutions, and with that dating and in the Atlantic Basin, could only have come from the Eastern Mediterranean through trading with others who have traded with Indian merchants. It is also a known fact that the fibre manufactured into "coir" was used in the Eastern Mediterranean for rigging on vessels based there as well as anyplace a rope type fibre would be required.

The Knights Templar fit that bill perfectly, having been based in the Eastern Mediterranean between 1115 and 1307, while at the same time trading with Arab merchants who also traded overland with India and having then sailed to a port in France where their ships were anchored for a couple of months before disappearing. This means nobody knew where they went, mostly because they were running from the law. They would not have been recorded in this voyage for the same reason.

There is no record of anybody else who was in the Eastern Mediterranean during this same time period (that coincides with the dating of the fibres) that would have had a reason or the ability to make this journey. To make another point, why wouldn't anybody else who made the voyage have recorded it? Certainly the Arabs would have.

Another point is that the first wave of the great Portuguese explorations were accomplished by the Knights of Christ, a reorganization of the Knights Templar by King Denis in Portugal in 1318/1319, with the first of these explorations ordered by Afonso IV shortly after. The famed Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) was also a Grand Master of the Order.

And, btw, I am not claiming proof, only good circumstantial evidence of which you are quite correct would not be enough to convict anybody.

Cheers, loki

 

[ECS]

Firstly, lets determine why you consider these quotes by esteemed Templar historians "superficial"?

Because they have nothing to do with your statement," None of the Templar historians dispute that fact that the Templar fleet disappeared".
Where are the quotes of these "esteemed Templar historians" that actually state that the Templar fleet "disappeared"?
Savvy?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

There is no record of anybody else who was in the Eastern Mediterranean during this same time period (that coincides with the dating of the fibres) that would have had a reason or the ability to make this journey. To make another point, why wouldn't anybody else who made the voyage have recorded it? Certainly the Arabs would have.

First "dating of the fibers". Just what was the report of the analysis? They NEVER give a specific date. It would have been "75% probability of 600 BCE +/- 80 years" or similar. They also have to use a database that is prepared for the region ASSUMING the material grew and was living in that region. Not transported there. And we have already discussed the problem with C-13 and C-14 ions present in seawater that skews "soaked" material. Any sample absorbing C-13 would appear older as C-144 degrades into C-13; and the measurement is to compare the amount of C-13 vs. C-14 because it has a known half-life. Famous example is of living sheep that eat seaweed on Scottish Islands which have wool that Radio-Carbon dates as hundreds of years old at the time it is shorn.

No one else? The Portuguese, the Scandinavians, the Catalans, the Almohad Cephalate (Spain & Morocco), the Netherlanders/Flanders, the French, the Venetians, the Genovese, etc. had the ability. The Portuguese fishermen had settlements there in the time period - and the reason was the Grand Banks and what is now known as the Flemish Cap; but labeled "Bacalhau" - Codfish. And further west Terras do Bacalhau. The Land of the Codfish. Newfoundland? There is an Island between Labrador and Newfoundland named "Baccalieu". But that's just "codfish". There's also a Balcalhoa Island off eastern Newfoundland.

Though it does show the Portuguese knew where to find what, and therefore had a reason to go there.

 

[ECS]

... I am not claiming proof, only good circumstantial evidence ...

As a fan of "circumstantial evidence" concerning the Templars, you need to read:
"TEMPLARS Who were they? Where did they go? Vol1 & Vol2 by Diana Jean Muir
and her book
"THE ANCESTORS OF SCOTT WOLTER" in which she has Wolter descendant from Merovingians, Capetian and Carolingian Kings, Grail Fisher Kings, Sea Kings of Norway, Irish Kings of Tara, Plantagenet Kings of England, Skullsplitter Thorfinn of Orkney, Templars, and of course, the Sinclairs.
Do you really need to ask if his ancestor was on the alleged Earl Henry Sinclair/Templar voyage to Oak Island and Nova Scotia?
Diana Jean Muir may even know who left the hunk of coir on Oak Island.

 

[lokiblossom]

Because they have nothing to do with your statement," None of the Templar historians dispute that fact that the Templar fleet disappeared".
Where are the quotes of these "esteemed Templar historians" that actually state that the Templar fleet "disappeared"?
Savvy?

Win this part of your argument, show me a quote from a Templar historian that claims the vessels didn't disappear from French ports after the raids. I think you will find there are none because this fact is not disputed. Its a moot point that you keep bringing up because you have lost every other argument.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The Portuguese fishermen had settlements there in the time period - and the reason was the Grand Banks and what is now known as the Flemish Cap; but labeled "Bacalhau" - Codfish.

No they didn't. They had an early settlement on Cape Breton, but not that early. And even if these others did there is no reason they would have had lines (ropes) made of "coir" or anything else of that material. Any voyage by others would have been recorded by them unless it was a few lost fishermen who happened by accident to locate the Grand Banks, would they have had "coir" lines? The Icelanders didn't record other nations fishing until after the 14th century (and they were very serious about others fishing), did these other sailors not need water and simply followed latitude's across the Atlantic?

A couple of unobtrusive vessels would probably not have been recorded by the Icelanders and if by the Greenlanders as late as the early 14th century, we probably would not have heard about it. Although there still may be some other evidence not yet surfaced.

As for the dating, It was done the most times by Beta Analytic, one of the most reputable firms in the world so I choose to take their word for it at as they wrote 95% probability, between 1168-1374 on one sample.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

As a fan of "circumstantial evidence" concerning the Templars, you need to read:
"TEMPLARS Who were they? Where did they go? Vol1 & Vol2 by Diana Jean Muir
and her book
"THE ANCESTORS OF SCOTT WOLTER" in which she has Wolter descendant from Merovingians, Capetian and Carolingian Kings, Grail Fisher Kings, Sea Kings of Norway, Irish Kings of Tara, Plantagenet Kings of England, Skullsplitter Thorfinn of Orkney, Templars, and of course, the Sinclairs.
Do you really need to ask if his ancestor was on the alleged Earl Henry Sinclair/Templar voyage to Oak Island and Nova Scotia?
Diana Jean Muir may even know who left the hunk of coir on Oak Island.

This is you and Franklin's discussion, one I don't know anything about so you should ask Franklin as that's his area!

Cheers, loki

 

[ECS]

Win this part of your argument, show me a quote from a Templar historian that claims the vessels didn't disappear from French ports after the raids. I think you will find there are none because this fact is not disputed. Its a moot point that you keep bringing up because you have lost every other argument.

I didn't realize this was about winning arguments, just the presentation of actual documented facts.
There is no respected Templar historian that states "disappeared" as a "fact".
Why are you so quick to dismiss Diana Jean Muir's "TEMPLARS, Who they were, Where did they go too" book set?
It does cover this "disappearance " you are so fond of mentioning, and is a factual as anything Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have written.

 

[franklin]

I didn't realize this was about winning arguments, just the presentation of actual documented facts.
There is no respected Templar historian that states "disappeared" as a "fact".
Why are you so quick to dismiss Diana Jean Muir's "TEMPLARS, Who they were, Where did they go two" book set?
It does cover this "disappearance " you are so fond of mentioning, and is a factual as anything Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have written.

Really. Factual. All you want to do is to keep arguing to bleed out more information from us that are actually doing research. Get a life.

 

[ECS]

Really. Factual. All you want to do is to keep arguing to bleed out more information from us that are actually doing research. Get a life.

I have NO reason 'to bleed out more information" from totally unreliable undocumented sources that mainly embellishments of creative writing based upon minimal random facts that are pieced together to support one's pet theory.
Are you able to explain why Bishop Thomas of Orkney states that Earl Henry Sinclair was fighting at the Scottish Borders in 1398 in accordance to his Oath of Fealty, and why the genealogy Diploma written in Middle English by his grandson NEVER mentions any voyage to the New World by Earl Henry or Henry's father, or Templars, all contrary to these highly questionable unverified by historical experts Sinclair Journals of Diana Jean Muir?
During the Medieval period, an Oath of Fealty and title of Earl, obligations as a vassal to the King, required Sinclair to remain on duty at all times, and was not free to take off on a voyage across the Atlantic without the permission and consent of the King.
Doing so without consent, Sinclair's title would have been revoked and given to another, and Sinclair would have been imprisoned or executed.
There are NO records of the King granting Sinclair permission, and combined with Bishop Thomas if Orkney's written and documented statement, Earl Henry Sinclair never left Scotland in 1398.
If you can prove different with actual documentation outside of Muir's creative fiction, please by all means bring it forth, instead of accusing me of "bleeding" you for information, which at most times is seriously flawed and outright wrong.
'Nuff Said.

 

[franklin]

I told you the treasures will answer all your negative facts.

 

[ECS]

I told you the treasures will answer all your negative facts.

What do you consider as "negative facts"?
Real documented facts like the SINCLAIR DIPLOMA and Bishop Thomas of Orkney's written and documented statements that are contrary to Diana Jean Muir's creative writing?
When she was busy "translating" these Sinclair Journals Muir probably wasn't aware that these documents existed.
AS for the treasures will be the answer, with all the holes dig on Oak Island during the last two centuries, even a blind dowser would have found something.

 

[franklin]

Your opinions does not bother me.

 

[ECS]

Your opinions does not bother me.

The SINCLAIR DIPLOMA and THE DIPLOMA of BISHOP THOMAS OF ORKNEY are not my opinion, but actual verified contemporary documents written by those that personally knew Earl Henry Sinclair, not some alleged "journals" found in a trunk in a Greenville, Tennessee basement, and then disposed of before they could be examined and verified as legitimate by professionals.

"Personal websites, DNA sites and Blogs have been utilized to verify some of the information and while the information varies, what is included is backed up with sources, which may or may not be correct"- Diana Jean Muir. April 2018
Websites and Blogs are not research sources of professional historians, and "may or may not correct" sure has the ring of opinion and not fact, Franklin.
'NUFF SAID!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

No they didn't. They had an early settlement on Cape Breton, but not that early. And even if these others did there is no reason they would have had lines (ropes) made of "coir" or anything else of that material.

Same with the Templars. They had no reason to use or transport coir. You asked who else had the ability and presence in the Eastern Mediterranean it that time. I listed many nations/groups.

I'm not even convinced it is coir or properly dated so I make no pretense there is ANY 14th century coir present on Oak Island. So it's useless to defend "who" brought any. Tides? I'd just like to see the original data and the method they used to "date" the fibers.

 

[lokiblossom]

Why are you so quick to dismiss Diana Jean Muir's "TEMPLARS, Who they were, Where did they go two" book set?
It does cover this "disappearance " you are so fond of mentioning, and is a factual as anything Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have written.

Disappeared is a "moot point", get over it, unless you can show that some vessels were captured by French authorities or turned over to the Hospital.

Why do you do this? To my knowledge I have never mentioned "Diana Jean Muir" nor dismissed her book, only that Franklin is more into that part of the story!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Same with the Templars. They had no reason to use or transport coir. You asked who else had the ability and presence in the Eastern Mediterranean it that time. I listed many nations/groups.

I'm not even convinced it is coir or properly dated so I make no pretense there is ANY 14th century coir present on Oak Island. So it's useless to defend "who" brought any. Tides? I'd just like to see the original data and the method they used to "date" the fibers.

Of course they did, that is what they had when they left Cyprus. Why would they derig vessels after arriving at La Rochelle for a short time, while not knowing when they would have to escape? Any other European vessels unless permanently based in the Eastern Mediterranean would not have been using coir for rigging.

The data is all available on line and very specific, with at least 5 positive identifications and several C-14 datings by two different Labs. The first identification was made by Dr. James H. Soper, when he wrote that 3 of the 4 samples sent to him were positively coconut fibre. You should look up the credentials of Dr. James Herbert Soper if you have any interest in actually investigating this.

Cheers, Loki

 

[franklin]

Quote Originally Posted by ECS View Post
Why are you so quick to dismiss Diana Jean Muir's "TEMPLARS, Who they were, Where did they go two" book set?
It does cover this "disappearance " you are so fond of mentioning, and is a factual as anything Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have written.

I like how you use others research as "factual" as others and then turn right in and refute it all together as not being factual. I guess it is what ever works for you?

 

[ECS]

...
I like how you use others research as "factual" as others and then turn right in and refute it all together as not being factual. I guess it is what ever works for you?

How is my reference to Muir's "TEMPLARS- Who They Were, Where Did They Go " in any way the use of others research, Franklin?
I was just informing Loki of a set of Templar books of which he may not have been aware existed.
Where in POST#589 did I state that Muir's work was factual?
Commenting that Muir's books were as "factual as anything Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln wrote" was a rhetorical statement.
It is highly humorous that you accuse me of using other research while you constantly utilizes Muir's works, uncredited I might add, as your "research", which Muir admitted came from personal websites and blogs which "may or may not be correct"