My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[DaveVanP]

I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone who accepts C14 as "GOSPEL, 100% accurate ant true", without regard for even the POSSIBILITY of error, is stupid. So I called NO ONE "stupid", but it appears you may be ADMITTING to it. Sort of a "if the shoe fits..." situation.

I'm not sure how you deduced that ECS was claiming that the 1810 rope manufacturer "used 500-year-old coir". All he said that rope made in 1810 (even with BRAND NEW material), if submerged in salt water for 200 years, along with other contaminants can, and HAVE, given INACCURATE C14 results with dates as much as 1000 years off. As I pointed out earlier, I have personally recovered rope and oakum remains from a Revolutionary War-era gunboat, and seen C14 datings on samples dated as early as 1250, and as late as 1850...from samples taken from the same specimen. Why would a ship, carrying documents dated 1777, be rigged with rope and caulked with oakum nearly 600 years old?...Possibly, they got here BEFORE the Templars?

I don't feel that anyone here absolutely believe it is IMPOSSIBLE that Templars visited Nova Scotia in the 14th Century. Unlikely - yes. PROVEN - NO. Evidence? - VERY WEAK. Documentation? - none verified, only "yarns" and legends.

The facts that material (coir) and artifacts (lead cross) are items that "could" be associated with Templars - but NOT exclusively - are tantalizing EVIDENCE, but NOT "PROOF". What ECS, Charley P. Reparee, and myself, et. al, are objecting to is your factually-unfounded insistence that the "evidence" you present in your posts is totally, absolutely, and inarguably concrete PROOF of the arrival of Templar Knights in Nova Scotia in the 14th Century, when in fact, there is very little evidence, and of that, it is very weak. You are entitled to have your beliefs, and opinions of what's under Oak Island, and who put it there - as do all of us. I admire your dedication to what you think is true - but it fades with your non-acceptance of ANY possibility that you *could* have it wrong... Many historical discoveries have been made by investigation and documented research, developing hypotheses, having those hypotheses SHOT DOWN, and try again. In a way, those I named are part of the Scientific Method - hypothesis must be questioned and tested, that whatever holds water can be developed into a theory. Students of history, as with scientists, must be thick-skinned enough to accept such scrutiny, and be thankful for the chance it provides for improvement. Being hard-headed only leads to being dismissed as a "Crank", or even "wacko".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'm not assuming. I'm just accumulating the evidence.

First thing that comes to mind if there is coconut coir is Polynesians. Not Templars. But there is no other evidence to support that.

If it was formed into rope strands (have not seen that proposed by any first hand account) then fishermen. Not Templars.

Same with netting.

Surface finds, regardless of what they are, do not indicate anything buried. Shallow or deep. That whole area has been traveled by French and British from Queen Anne's time. There were Basque and Portuguese in the area at least as far back as Columbus. Likely Scandinavians half a millennium before that.

I remain unconvinced that anything "structural" on the island was not left by any of the dozens of search groups that have tossed it and constructed staging spots repeatedly in the last two hundred years, or by the residents.

Did one of the early residents find something of value near the surface? Possible. But, again, the evidence is scattered and lost.

"Evidence" interpreted from European monuments, chapels and texts is too speculative and can be twisted and interpreted to support any claim. Besides, why bother leaving such clues?

 

[ECS]

... There were 5 C-14 tests on the coconut coir found on Oak Island and all were dated to before the 14th century showing various degrees of accuracy in the report that also concludes their dating prior to the 14th century...

If there are five C-14 tests in the coconut coir found in Oak Island, then please post the entire report papers on the labs letterhead that details these "various degrees of accuracy" of 14th century dating.

So far what you have presented is your "word" that these labs concluded a 14th century date for these coir samples, but as we have observed from other "evidential facts" presented, you do have a penchant of "cherry picking", only mentioning information that can be fitted into your premise, while discarding what doesn't.
What is also important in determining whether or not these samples were compromised by environment or post in situ handling is the chain of possession, who removed the samples from the site, was there coir found at other sites and was it also submitted, how long and where were they stored before being brought to the testing lab, who submitted the test samples, were other items such as wood from the site area also submitted. and were suppositions mentioned to the lab.

One other question, Loki, do you have access to these lab reports and have you actually read these laboratory report conclusions in their entirety, or was it just a mention from one of those pseudohistory books you quote as fact?
If you have access and possession of these lab C-14 test reports, its time to post them to support your 14th century claim as to being accepted as being totally accurate.
If not, is will remain as just your questionable word, and explain why you continue to misrepresent my statements concerning the WM STAIR & Co rope manufacturer of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

 

[franklin]

If there are five C-14 tests in the coconut coir found in Oak Island, then please post the entire report papers on the labs letterhead that details these "various degrees of accuracy" of 14th century dating.

So far what you have presented is your "word" that these labs concluded a 14th century date for these coir samples, but as we have observed from other "evidential facts" presented, you do have a penchant of "cherry picking", only mentioning information that can be fitted into your premise, while discarding what doesn't.
What is also important in determining whether or not these samples were compromised by environment or post in situ handling is the chain of possession, who removed the samples from the site, was there coir found at other sites and was it also submitted, how long and where were they stored before being brought to the testing lab, who submitted the test samples, were other items such as wood from the site area also submitted. and were suppositions mentioned to the lab.

One other question, Loki, do you have access to these lab reports and have you actually read these laboratory report conclusions in their entirety, or was it just a mention from one of those pseudohistory books you quote as fact?
If you have access and possession of these lab C-14 test reports, its time to post them to support your 14th century claim as to being accepted as being totally accurate.
If not, is will remain as just your questionable word, and explain why you continue to misrepresent my statements concerning the WM STAIR & Co rope manufacturer of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/...9/carbon_dating_-_les_macphie_compilation.pdf

Look them up yourself on the webpage Charlie P. gave us on May 18th. Post #754

 

[ECS]

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/...9/carbon_dating_-_les_macphie_compilation.pdf

Look them up yourself on the webpage Charlie P. gave us on May 18th. Post #754

Loki constantly presents as his "evidence" for a Templar presence on Oak Island, therefore Loki, should be the one to post the letterhead test documents that confirm his oft repeated 14th century coir statements and resolve the posed question concerning if he actually read these reports or is only repeating what he gleaned from a pulp pseudohistory Templar book written by quasi historians that is fiction based on compilation of totally unrelated 99% fact.
I'm sure, Franklin, you realize that fiction from 99% fact, is still fiction.

 

[ECS]

...I'm not sure how you deduced that ECS was claiming that the 1810 rope manufacturer "used 500-year-old coir".
All he said that rope made in 1810 (even with BRAND NEW material), if submerged in salt water for 200 years, along with other contaminants can, and HAVE, given INACCURATE C14 results with dates as much as 1000 years off...

Loki's constant misrepresentation of my posted WM STAIR & Co in nearby Halifax information of importing coconut coir doesn't appear to be a deduction, but rather a deflection of the hard fact that there is a possible other source than the Templars for coir found on Oak Island, and the very nature of constantly misquoting my posts reveal an obviously insecurity concern with his Templar coir theory.
It is either this insecurity of presented evidence or comprehension problems with what is written, or both, for these constant blatantly misquotes and misdirection that is tantamount to entirely false interpretations of the actual statements made.
Which is it, Loki?

 

[franklin]

I think you need to check your "dwell meter" It seems to idle in the same location without ever finding where it is going?

 

[ECS]

What are you talking about, Franklin?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

The chart I linked to just describes what. It doesn't give any details in the methodology used to interpret the C-14 vs. C-13 ratio or the database used to compare that ratio to local samples. If the coconut didn't grow on Oak Island they would have had to look-up the graph for where it did grow. And if they knew that they would have a good idea on who transported it.

The natural "background" C-14 and C-13 varies by year and geographic location. It is not a straight line linear regression.

 

[lokiblossom]

I didn't call you anything. I pointed out that anyone who accepts C14 as "GOSPEL, 100% accurate ant true", without regard for even the POSSIBILITY of error, is stupid. So I called NO ONE "stupid", but it appears you may be ADMITTING to it. Sort of a "if the shoe fits..."

Again 5th grade stuff! And btw, the only way saltwater "seriously" effects C-14 dating is through organisms actually living in saltwater, or in a diminished capacity those found in the greater depths. Other than that the effects were taken into account with the ranges allowed by Beta Analytic. All the coconut fibre found on Oak Island was cut on dry land sometime before the 14th century, that is a fact you have to live with! You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up. Are you detractors exempt from producing sources sort of like the Salt Lake City group?

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Loki's constant misrepresentation of my posted WM STAIR & Co in nearby Halifax information of importing coconut coir doesn't appear to be a deduction, but rather a deflection of the hard fact that there is a possible other source than the Templars for coir found on Oak Island, and the very nature of constantly misquoting my posts reveal an obviously insecurity concern with his Templar coir theory.
It is either this insecurity of presented evidence or comprehension problems with what is written, or both, for these constant blatantly misquotes and misdirection that is tantamount to entirely false interpretations of the actual statements made.
Which is it, Loki?

You state that the coir found on Oak Island came from a company founded in Halifax in 1810. The coir on Oak Island has been "reliably" dated by a reputable lab to before the 14th century, I don't agree with you or your disciples belief that the dating is seriously in error, therefore I believe you are claiming the Halifax company was using at least 500 year old coir.

Cheers, Loki

 

[DaveVanP]

Again 5th grade stuff! And btw, the only way saltwater "seriously" effects C-14 dating is through organisms actually living in saltwater, or in a diminished capacity those found in the greater depths. Other than that the effects were taken into account with the ranges allowed by Beta Analytic. All the coconut fibre found on Oak Island was cut on dry land sometime before the 14th century, that is a fact you have to live with! You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up. Are you detractors exempt from producing sources sort of like the Salt Lake City group?

Cheers, Loki

Immersion is salt water effects the C-13/C-14 ration by infusing different levels of C-13 into the material skewing the ration towards an "older" indication. Also, in the case of "buried" specimens, can be altered by anaerobic microbes in the soil, have been found to selectively absorb carbon, and do so at DIFFERENT rates, again skewing any test results. Some may absorb C-14, making the test result to show "older", some absorb C13, making the test result as "younger".

Many objects that have been dated, such as a leather saddle from 1765, that is marked with the maker's name and date of manufacture...any C-13/C-14 tests dates determined are STILL considered "APPROXIMATE", and HAVE often been WILDLY in conflict with the other evidence in attendance. There is NOT ONE bona-fide, certified, respected archaelogist or historian who will accept ANY C13/C14 tests as "Gospel 100% accurate and true" - in fact, when I brought the subject up at an archeological conference several years ago, the consensus of the professors was: "They are UNRELIABLE; they can give you a good point to start at, but I would not accept them at face value without corroborating evidence." NO thesis or dissertation relying EXCLUSIVELY on Carbon testing for "substantiation" of position would be considered as valid by Professor or University. Such dating evidence MUST BE BACKED UP with other physical or documentary evidence, to have ANY weight.

"You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up." So eyewitness accounts, and hands-on experience carry no weight with you? I do not wish to share my personal journal I kept while a History and Maritime Archaeology student...perhaps I should send it to Amazon to "Publish" it on Kindle, if for no other reason than to satisfy YOUR own personal standards. Works of mine that HAVE have been published include articles in "Naval History" (U.S. Naval Institute) and "Fortitudine" (Marine Corps History and Museum Division) Magazines, as well as listed as a "For Further Reading" reference in a "Smithsonian" Magazine article, though none of my articles were focused on the unreliability of carbon dating. One reviewer rated my writing as "insightful, but not brilliant" Better than getting trashed, I guess.

 

[ECS]

You state that the coir found on Oak Island came from a company founded in Halifax in 1810. The coir on Oak Island has been "reliably" dated by a reputable lab to before the 14th century, I don't agree with you or your disciples belief that the dating is seriously in error, therefore I believe you are claiming the Halifax company was using at least 500 year old coir.

Well that reply does answer the "comprehension" portion of the questions posed on POST #766 and Loki's constant deliberate misrepresentation of what was stated concerning coir utilized by the WM STAIR & Co of Halifax, Nova Scotia, creating serious credibility issues concerning his presentation of his other unsupported by real historical fact conclusions of a Templar presence on Oak Island.

Once again, if BETA ANALYTIC dating test have concluded a definite 14th century date for this Oak Island coir sample, post the actual report and results on their company letterhead so all can read and determine for themselves.
This would a least confirm that you actually read this report and are not passing on second information from a quasi historian pulp author of pseudohistory like your oft quoted "HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL" by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln.
What do you have to lose?

 

[ECS]

... You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up.
Are you detractors exempt from producing sources sort of like the Salt Lake City group?

Statements similar to your claims concerning the 14th century conclusions of BETA ANALYTIC as being correct.
Incidentally, is that reference to "the Salt Lake City group" being exempt from "producing sources" aimed at that famed LDS genealogist, Diana Jean Muir, and her "found" THE LOST TEMPLAR JOURNALS OF PRINCE HENRY SINCLAIR?
So far there hasn't been any mention of "coir" in her series of novels, which is probably the reason for your quisling quip.

 

[lokiblossom]

"You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up." So eyewitness accounts, and hands-on experience carry no weight with you?

I believe I stood on the site of the Holy Grail near Annapolis Basin in 2009! What do you think of that? Do you think I need sources or will you take my word for it? I also have a long line of credentials related to my research which I will not discuss here.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The facts are that the many C-14 tests on the Oak Island coconut fibre show for a fact that the fibre was cut prior to the 14th century and therefore came from either the Pacific/ Indian Ocean basins or as manufactured "coir" from the Eastern Mediterranean area! If anybody wants to argue these facts they need to show proof that all of the C-14 tests done by reputable companies published with full reports are in error, not a few words about how they may be in error because for instance "I am smarter than the Lab technicians"!

Cheers, Loki

 

[DaveVanP]

Other than that the effects were taken into account with the ranges allowed by Beta Analytic. All the coconut fibre found on Oak Island was cut on dry land sometime before the 14th century, that is a fact you have to live with! You make statements such as, you have seen this, or you have seen that, with no sources to back it up.
Cheers, Loki

So we are to just "ACCEPT" that you have even seen the Beta Analysis test results - or are we to just "take your word for it" without any "sources to back it up" (as YOU so eloquently put it)? This is where we are at an impasse… You present your OPINION as "fact" at face value, with no factual corroboration - and expect us to accept it; we have passed on to you documentary factual information and personal experience which you reject simply because it does not agree with your opinion.

Diana Jane Muir's claim to have translated of the "Lost Templar Journals of Prince Henry Sinclair" (which she inexplicable claims also to have destroyed) carries no more weight than a claim anyone could make of "discovering" a napkin containing notes taken by John at the Last Supper - the "substantiating proof" being, of the four Gospels, John's is the MOST detailed in things that were said and done; complete conversations, and descriptions of elaborate rituals... - "ONLY someone who was actually THERE and recorded it could give such a detailed account..." Of, course, such an artifact also contained esoteric knowledge that "the world is not ready for it, so the existence of the napkin has been concealed by a secret cabal"...A preposterous story? Perhaps - but NO LESS than the yarns spun by so many "Templars in America" proponents.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I believe I stood on the site of the Holy Grail near Annapolis Basin in 2009! What do you think of that? Do you think I need sources or will you take my word for it? I also have a long line of credentials related to my research which I will not discuss here.

Cheers, Loki

I, for one, have no trouble believing that you believe you have done what you claim.

But I am less convinced that the facts would support your belief. I have no reason to doubt you did stand where you claim. What you were standing on . . . that is a little more open to alternative choices.

Further, if there were an object thought to be the Holy Grail, even if collected in the Levant by Crusaders, it would be a tough sell that it is "real" short of miraculous manifestations. Last count there were already 200 or so claimants in European cathedrals.

BBC - Travel - Is this the home of the Holy Grail?

 

[lokiblossom]

So we are to just "ACCEPT" that you have even seen the Beta Analysis test results - or are we to just "take your word for it" without any "sources to back it up" (as YOU so eloquently put it)? This is where we are at an impasse… You present your OPINION as "fact" at face value, with no factual corroboration - and expect us to accept it; we have passed on to you documentary factual information and personal experience which you reject simply because it does not agree with your opinion.

Diana Jane Muir's claim to have translated of the "Lost Templar Journals of Prince Henry Sinclair" (which she inexplicable claims also to have destroyed) carries no more weight than a claim anyone could make of "discovering" a napkin containing notes taken by John at the Last Supper - the "substantiating proof" being, of the four Gospels, John's is the MOST detailed in things that were said and done; complete conversations, and descriptions of elaborate rituals... - "ONLY someone who was actually THERE and recorded it could give such a detailed account..." Of, course, such an artifact also contained esoteric knowledge that "the world is not ready for it, so the existence of the napkin has been concealed by a secret cabal"...A preposterous story? Perhaps - but NO LESS than the yarns spun by so many "Templars in America" proponents.

Are you really telling me that with all your degrees you don't have the ability to look up the Beta Analytic results on line? I found your half statement on coconut coir dating in less than 5 minutes last month.

I don't know why you and your leader keep bringing up Diana Muir when arguing with me, that is Franklin's area and he knows a lot more about it than I do!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

I, for one, have no trouble believing that you believe you have done what you claim.

But I am less convinced that the facts would support your belief. I have no reason to doubt you did stand where you claim. What you were standing on . . . that is a little more open to alternative choices.

Further, if there were an object thought to be the Holy Grail, even if collected in the Levant by Crusaders, it would be a tough sell that it is "real" short of miraculous manifestations. Last count there were already 200 or so claimants in European cathedrals.

BBC - Travel - Is this the home of the Holy Grail?

Wow, I did not know there were 200 claimants although I do know of 4 in certain cathedrals, but the real Holy Grail is not simply a grail cup or stone, it is much more a proof of an ideal. As I've mentioned before, Dan Brown had the identity correct albeit more by chance than actual knowledge. Also as I mentioned before I followed 10 easy to follow clues to the whereabouts near Annapolis Basin. But you are correct, if I didn't dig into the pile of rocks, that bounced, I don't know for sure. I have written Nova Scotia Museums several times and all they can tell me is that I need an archaeologists to get a permit to investigate the site, so I have endeavored to keep my premise on several forums until I find an interested archaeologist.

Cheers, Loki