My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[franklin]

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"

There you go mis-quoting everything again. You really need help.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

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.

It appears that you are the misquoting, Franklin, my friend.
It seems that you are the needing "help" concerning comprehension of rhetorical humor.
Where in the above post did I claim it was "fact"?
Just Sayin' 'Nuff Said!

 

[DaveVanP]

Any reference that ADMITS that it "may or may not be correct" is ABSOLUTELY USELESS as a valid reference - even if it does contain "some" factual information, although it would place those facts under a shadow of doubt. Basically, it is no different than saying, "It 's true, cuz I seen it on YouTube."

 

[lokiblossom]

Some of the many uses for Coconut Fibre as manufactured into "Coir" in India, and used by Arabs and Crusaders alike in the Outremer of the Middle Ages include, ropes for ships lines and riggings, fishing nets, woven into mats for sleeping on vessels or anywhere else, as well as for tying down cargos, packing for ships cargos, extensively in stables for tying of horses, on saddles and even for saddles, also used on pack animals for tying on of packs and lead ropes. Actually, anyplace a hemp rope product could be used in Europe, in Outremer "coir" was the substitute.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

Oh, what the hell: Yes, you and anyone else can refute that. You can refute that Pilgrims landed in North America in 1620 or that American men walked on the Moon in 1969, but that doesn't in any way prove it didn't happen. For years many historians refuted Vikings visiting North America before Columbus, how did that turn out?

We have concrete, verifiable material evidence showing the Puritans were in NA. Ditto for men on the moon, ditto for the Norse in Nfld. Templars on OI? Not so much.

 

[ECS]

... Coconut Fibre as manufactured into "Coir" in India, and used by Arabs and Crusaders alike in the Outremer of the Middle Ages ...

The dating of the found Oak Island "coir" is based on when it was harvested for manufacture , not when it was deposited on Oak Island, and while the Templars, Crusaders, and others had access to products made from coir, that is hardly any evidence on how or by whom it arrived on Oak Island.
Attempting to connect the lone and uncollaborated testimony of Jean de Charon of 18 galleys that set to sea from La Rochelle along with the coir as additional evidence of Templar presence on Oak Island, is just pure fabricated speculation to support a pet theory utilizing unrelated facts to create a flimsy gossamer tapestry of alleged facts that lack solid substance.
If one can not produce solid verifiable evidence of any Templar voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia beyond presenting unrelated circumstantial anecdotes as the sole validity of an alleged Templar voyage, is becomes nothing more than a fictional fantasy fairy tale.

 

[franklin]

The dating of the found Oak Island "coir" is based on when it was harvested for manufacture , not when it was deposited on Oak Island, and while the Templars, Crusaders, and others had access to products made from coir, that is hardly any evidence on how or by whom it arrived on Oak Island.
Attempting to connect the lone and uncollaborated testimony of Jean de Charon of 18 galleys that set to sea from La Rochelle along with the coir as additional evidence of Templar presence on Oak Island, is just pure fabricated speculation to support a pet theory utilizing unrelated facts to create a flimsy gossamer tapestry of alleged facts that lack solid substance.
If one can not produce solid verifiable evidence of any Templar voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia beyond presenting unrelated circumstantial anecdotes as the sole validity of an alleged Templar voyage, is becomes nothing more than a fictional fantasy fairy tale.

So is everything we are taught.

 

[ECS]

So is everything we are taught.

Maybe what you were taught, Franklin.
That may explain why you have constantly made disparaging and negative remarks about educators on these TN treads.

 

[franklin]

The educators as you call them have been wrong for thousands of years and will continue to be wrong. Sometimes you have to get off those winding dirt roads to find the Interstate.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Any reference that ADMITS that it "may or may not be correct" is ABSOLUTELY USELESS as a valid reference - even if it does contain "some" factual information, although it would place those facts under a shadow of doubt. Basically, it is no different than saying, "It 's true, cuz I seen it on YouTube."

Not necessarily. Any scientist that refuses to admit some phenomenon "may or may not" be the result of what was observed opens themselves up to the wrong conclusion. That's why such things are "theories" until they fall into natural law. Keep an open mind.

But be a little realistic and keep skepticism handy for it will protect you from the dogmatic.

 

[ECS]

The educators as you call them have been wrong for thousands of years and will continue to be wrong. Sometimes you have to get off those winding dirt roads to find the Interstate.

When one makes such grand statements, Franklin, they should be willing and able to back them up with examples.
So far you have NOT proven any educators or what they have taught as wrong.
Please list all the wrong things taught by "the educators" for thousands of years.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

When a child starts out we fill their head with all kinds of "little lies" that, we hope, they begin to replace with the more complicated and more correct answers.

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

The all cap speaker is Death - the Grim Reaper. Think a voice like Christopler Lee

 

[ECS]

I know that its not solid proof, which is why I wrote that all the information we have on fleeing Templars is conjecture...

If it is, as you admit, not solid proof but conjecture, why do you continuously post about that small coir sample as evidence of a Templar voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia, when there in way whatsoever to directly connect that coir sample to the Templars, Freemasons, Pirates, or anyone?

 

[lokiblossom]

If it is, as you admit, not solid proof but conjecture, why do you continuously post about that small coir sample as evidence of a Templar voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia, when there in way whatsoever to directly connect that coir sample to the Templars, Freemasons, Pirates, or anyone?

I have changed direction a little and am now claiming the "coconut coir" (not one small sample btw) as proof of a pre-Columbian Templar visit to Oak Island. I also follow 10 clues, that few would accept as evidence unless they actually studied them, that point to a deposit of something at a site I have visited near Annapolis Basin.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The dating of the found Oak Island "coir" is based on when it was harvested for manufacture , not when it was deposited on Oak Island, and while the Templars, Crusaders, and others had access to products made from coir, that is hardly any evidence on how or by whom it arrived on Oak Island.
Attempting to connect the lone and uncollaborated testimony of Jean de Charon of 18 galleys that set to sea from La Rochelle along with the coir as additional evidence of Templar presence on Oak Island, is just pure fabricated speculation to support a pet theory utilizing unrelated facts to create a flimsy gossamer tapestry of alleged facts that lack solid substance.
If one can not produce solid verifiable evidence of any Templar voyage to Oak Island/Nova Scotia beyond presenting unrelated circumstantial anecdotes as the sole validity of an alleged Templar voyage, is becomes nothing more than a fictional fantasy fairy tale.

The only fictional fantasy in this whole post is in the use of the word "unrelated"!

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

The only fictional fantasy in this whole post is in the use of the word "unrelated"!

Loki, my friend, you have yet to solidly provide hard evidence beyond wishful pet theory speculation that coir + de Chalons "set to sea statement" = Templars on Oak Island/ Nova Scotia.
Until you can submit actual verifiable evidence that connects these random alleged "facts", it will stand just a fantastic fabricated fictional fantasy supporting a foundation fallacy of a faulty false construction of facts.

 

[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...

It seems that you are not aware of another version of this story, that has the 18 galleys in the Seine River in Paris, sails blackened with tar to escape at night to La Rochelle, where they joined other Templar ships waiting for King Phillip's army.
https://www.captaintonz.com/templar.html
PS: No mention of coconut coir or disappearing vessels in this version.

 

[lokiblossom]

It seems that you are not aware of another version of this story, that has the 18 galleys in the Seine River in Paris, sails blackened with tar to escape at night to La Rochelle, where they joined other Templar ships waiting for King Phillip's army.
https://www.captaintonz.com/templar.html
PS: No mention of coconut coir or disappearing vessels in this version.

Is that the version you accept?

Yes, I have read the story and know it quite well, this also has part of the fleet helping Robert the Bruce. Actually, I've probably read them all. I would expect you to vehemently oppose this version, but to each his own I suppose!

Btw, there are many other versions and you would do well to check them all before you stand on one. An unescapable fact (that I did mention to you) is that in all of the versions the vessels of the Knights Templar disappeared and this is not disputed.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Is that the version you accept? ...

You know better than that, Loki, my friend.

If you have read all these versions as claimed, you probably noticed that they all variations on the same material with supporting,writers personal pet theory ;ie, the Templars with Bruce at Bannockburn, Sinclair led the Templars at that battle, Templars became pirates, Templars buried treasure on Oak Island, etc, all circumstantially presented without real solid documented evidence or proof.
What are interesting variations in Captain Tonz version, concerns the "treasure" being books, the 18 galleys on the Seine in Paris and not at La Rochelle, the Templar "fleet" NOT disappearing, but waiting offshore for King Phillip's army, then dividing with one setting to sea for Scotland the other to Portugal.

As you are aware, Loki,what all these versions and variations have in common is that there is NO contemporary Medieval records or documents confirming any of the content of these stories beyond de Chalons very vague testimony reference, allowing the creative assault on minimal period factual information concerning those events concerning the raid and the alleged "flight" to be made into fabricated facts in support of these "modern" Templar fables.

 

[DaveVanP]

Btw, there are many other versions and you would do well to check them all before you stand on one. An unescapable fact (that I did mention to you) is that in all of the versions the vessels of the Knights Templar disappeared and this is not disputed.

Cheers, Loki

There being several versions of "what happened", only one CAN be true... but none MUST be true.
There is one hypothesis that has not been advanced, but history and precedent provide it with at LEAST anecdotal support (which ALL hypotheses resulting in Templars on Oak Island LACK) - by "anecdotal support" I mean, "it's happened this way dozens of times to others, maybe the same thing happened here"....

This un-discussed hypothesis is this: The 18-ship "Templar Fleet" sailed off into the sunset - and sank in a storm, losing all hands, leaving no trace.

OCCAM RULES!