My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Genesis 1:26 states "Let us make man in Our image, and let THEM have dominion...". Many translations use the word "mankind" rather than man, so the context of the word is as the RACE" of man , not "a man".

In some version translated into English. Interesting that God, at that time, was talking to Himself and used "Us" instead of "Me". Famously quoted elsewhere as "I Am" rather than "We Are".

And, since it is held that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible around, perhaps, 1350 BC . . . who was the stenographer before Adam? Or even before Moses?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

I will admit, I am quite discriminating when dealing with historical artifacts. A skeptic, but not necessarily a cynic.
I consider myself open-minded to POSSIBILITIES.
"Evidence" is NOT "proof". Even a PREDONDERANCE of evidence is NOT "proof". Evidence indicates "what COULD BE' not "what IS". "Conclusive evidence" is merely that which is definitive enough to form a CONCLUSION, not DETERMINE FACT.
Even if the lead cross Gary found had been enscribed with the initials "H StC" it would not be PROOF that it belonged to Henry StClair, or that HE left it on Oak Island....jst that he "could have".
I do have an interest in "what could have been"...but only that it COULD have been. Isolated and ambiguous evidence do not history make.
I am a fan of Jason Covalito...check out his website.

COULD the Templars have visited Oak Island? - possible, but not likely. I won't say it DIDN'T happen, but no one can state positively that it DID.
COULD Vikings have visited Minnesota? Possible, but not likely. I won't say it DIDN'T happen, but no one can state positively that it DID.
COULD there have been civilizations on earth thousands of years before the Sumerians?* Possible, but not likely. I won't say it DIDN'T happen, but no one can state positively that it DID.
COULD there have been pre-Columbian, even pre-Norse, European, African or Asian contact with North America? Possible, and I go out a limb to lean towards being "likely"... but I won't say positively that it DID.
DID Egyptians have a settlement in the Grand Canyon...I can't go with that one....
DID aliens influence human development?….I can't go there, either...ditto for *Atlantis.

Could some of Israels lost tribes have come to North America? Possible, but not likely. I won't say it DIDN'T happen, but no one can state positively that they DID.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

I am not aware of nor have I cultivated "disciples", but I and others have presented other localized "viable information" on how was on Oak Island other than being brought by a fantasy Templar voyage to Nova Scotia.
The Smith Cove coir sample that you continue to tout as evidence of the Templars was a purposefully constructed 2 inch coir fibre mat atop a 4-5 inch layer of eel grass above a layer of beach rocks free of sand and grass.
If the Templars left behind this coir in this obvious construction at Smith Cove which is definitely NOT discarded cargo packing debris, to what purpose would the Templars construct this?

I have not seen that written in any of the four lab reports, nor did the Lagina team mention it when they produced their sample that was tested.

Cheers, Loki

 

[SSR]

I see that the Templar coconut dating bootstrapping argument continues on. Troubling. What do we know about dating degraded coconut fiber in marine environments? Well, we know that it is unreliable and entirely prone to errors on the scale of 1000+ years. In essence, if something is dated to 900 AD that result is consistent with an 1850 usage and there is no way to untangle that uncertainty without using corroborating methods of dating. No one under the Sun would get away with dating an archaeological site with one unreliable dating method. The cove "works" all come back with a mixed bag of dates, but much of it is clustered around the 1850 period. Part of a reclaimed structure more reliably dated by dendrochonology dates to around 1770. That's a great result since it tells us we are seeing a level worked by post colonials (New England Planter settlers).

The premise of this thread from the start is that there's even a case to be made for Templars. The argument uses known faked documents deposited by a confessed fraudster named Pierre Plantard who deposited them at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris years ago. That he admitted to all this, and that it was part of a prank that made him out to be the living descendant of Jesus Christ, has apparently never hindered some people to continue as if there is a possibility of it being real. Just gloss over the troubling realities...

The OI mystery is part of an allegory that one can substantively attribute to the Nova Scotian writer, judge and well known prankster Thomas C. Haliburton. It was by all appearances done in the very same style of the the Rosicrucian mystery writers, and it is heavily influenced by ideas about Francis Bacon's role in Freemasonry. Does it involve Cathars in it's mythologies. You bet. It's one of no less than a dozen very important themes written in this web of religious intrigue. Haliburton's relatives in England were keen Bacon-as-Shakespeare theorists. That gets written in Haliburton too, and it made its way into the OI ground story from ca.1890 onward where it still persists.

About the Cathars, the Cathars were accused by the catholic Church of being a Manichean sect, the last known one in that lineage. When you read about about the importance of the Books of Enoch to Manicheans you start to understand why it is we were given a story that revolves about a pit that resembles Enoch's vault. Haliburton got many details right, presumably because he was very highly educated in the Liberal Arts (for this period). When he wrote "The Old Judge" vol. I, II he served others in the immediate years after its publication by establishing a rumor of treasure that is not pirate or French in Chester Bay. He linked it to Saxon Germany where Rosicrucian ideas stemmed. It is only after Haliburton that the origins stories of OI start to get written in a revisionist way in the cultural record, imho. He should be essential reading to OI fans.

Loki, is a great character from mythological literature who' s the archetype equivalent of Hermes in Greek myth. He's of the archetype of the prankster. It really does beg the question of whether or not we ' re in the presence of another Pierre Plantard pulling our leg here. There's ample reason to not persist with feeding these Templar stories, yet they continue. Caveat Emptor. It's interesting because it is very easy to write interesting narratives. The truth is better and richer than the supposed in this case.

 

[DaveVanP]

In some version translated into English. Interesting that God, at that time, was talking to Himself and used "Us" instead of "Me". Famously quoted elsewhere as "I Am" rather than "We Are".
?

The usual explanation is that the "we" used is the "Royal 'We"', and monarchs usually refer to themselves in the 3rd Person plural, as they "are" the nation.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Nah. The first Commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

And the last words we have directly (according to the New Testament) from God:

"This is my beloved Son, of whom I am well pleased"

Not "Us". God, where quoted directly, is always first person singular. But, again, The Bible is an accumulation of various translations. Ancient Hebrew didn't use vowels or numbers so there is a lot of wiggle room.

 

[ECS]

I have not seen that written in any of the four lab reports, nor did the Lagina team mention it when they produced their sample that was tested.

The in situ condition not being mentioned of the coir proffered for dating by either the testing lab or the "Lagina team" who have a vested interest in 14th century results for their reality show, is a major weak link in the provenance chain of possession that casts serious doubts on the C-14 dating the conclusions, especially since coconut fibre has been scientifically proven if exposed and/or buried in soli to totally biodegrade within 15 months.

 

[franklin]

The layout of Nolan's Cross prove that the work was accomplished between 1200 A.D. and 1400 A.D. Why because the Stones of the Cross were laid out by a water based compass using the magnetic North Pole. Had they laid out the Stones of Nolan's Cross by the use of Declination then the Stones of the Cross would not have been laid out at a 30 degree East Angle of 60 degrees ENE or in reverse 240 degrees SSW. Declination was discovered in the 15th Century. The Chinese knew about the difference between Magnetic North and True Magnetic North in 1088. Guess who had a Chinese Navigator in 1395. Yep, Antonio Zeno. The British and Eastern Europe did not know of the difference until 1543. So they could not have been the navigators that placed the Stones on Oak Island known today as Nolan's Cross. Only the Knights Templar and the Chinese had that know how until the 16th Century.

So much for trying to disprove the Coconut Fibers and their carbon dating. Seems to me when a company claims a 95 percent accuracy, you should tend to believe that scientist.

 

[ECS]

... Seems to me when a company claims a 95 percent accuracy, you should tend to believe that scientist.

Seems to me that when all legitimate historians and lettered scholars state that the Zeno Narrative was a work of fiction, you should tend to believe those professionals.

 

[franklin]

Your professionals not my professionals.

 

[SSR]

The layout of Nolan's Cross prove that the work was accomplished between 1200 A.D. and 1400 A.D. Why because the Stones of the Cross were laid out by a water based compass using the magnetic North Pole. Had they laid out the Stones of Nolan's Cross by the use of Declination then the Stones of the Cross would not have been laid out at a 30 degree East Angle of 60 degrees ENE or in reverse 240 degrees SSW. Declination was discovered in the 15th Century. The Chinese knew about the difference between Magnetic North and True Magnetic North in 1088. Guess who had a Chinese Navigator in 1395. Yep, Antonio Zeno. The British and Eastern Europe did not know of the difference until 1543. So they could not have been the navigators that placed the Stones on Oak Island known today as Nolan's Cross. Only the Knights Templar and the Chinese had that know how until the 16th Century.

So much for trying to disprove the Coconut Fibers and their carbon dating. Seems to me when a company claims a 95 percent accuracy, you should tend to believe that scientist.

The use of the method errs only by 5% no matter what sample you are given. That's its contribution to error. That 95% figure tells you nothing about the reliability of the sample (whether dating degrading coconut fiber in marine environments is going to be reliable). Give them an unreliable sample and they will report to you with 95% confidence what they come to by instrumentation. To know better that the dating is sound you'd need a corroborating alternate method for some of the same material or other material. Dendrochronology, when it has been successfully used, has not corroborated those dates. in fact, nothing has. You an outlier result which does not inspire confidence.

Nolan's cross was not set by magnetic compass. It was set by celestial observation using Polaris in the the fashion of sailors using the Stella Maris. We can deduce this because the money pit location was long ago observed to be on a line true North from the stone triangle pointer survey done by Roper. A tight relationship (point, arc and radius of a circle) between the stone pointer, the pit and the stem declination exists. The original layout uses true North, it was still observed as that in the 1940s and it is still that today.The relation of the declination of the cross stem is better looked at by the difference of bearing with the original land grant line dividing the island where it is immediately recognizable for other symbolic significances. It is therefore reasonable to date the "cross" stone placements to no earlier than the surveying of the island in and around the time of the creation of the township at Chester nearby. The man, Charles Morris, who was tasked to accomplish this had the required skill and he had a military masonic background to use as inspiration if he so chose to. He accomplished this work with local German settlers who presumably used this as the basis for some of the local legends of bizarre geometric goings-on in Chester Bay that Haliburton has as detail in his allegory that touches about this mystery.

Why OI was divided the way it was in the 1750s is worth studying because it influenced the layout of the Cross cones later. As far as I can tell the position of the stones is copying another layout that is found in two other places, one of them earlier (early 1600s) and another a good deal later. That's not unreasonable since the layout exploits a known geometric arrangement that is part of Euclidian polygon construction techniques that begin to get published and disseminated in the late 16th century. There's a ton there to be inspired from if one so desires. Where one goes with that is complete conjecture if one is only guessing. There is no necessary meaning to any of it. It is most likely based on esoteric ideas that are already quite entrenched in the myths of fraternal organizations by the mid 1750s. Morris is a likely figure for having been involved in the initial surveying. It is also possible that others came and added to his previously marked of positions, but that would be after colonization. We know that colonial area trash was reported to have come from under one stone position. I see no reason why it could not have been a later embellishment to the island. What it is not is pre 1750, because it involves the main bisecting survey line. I feel quite happy with saying that NC is a post 1750 construction. It may be as late as the 1850s. That would not surprise me greatly since that's when the story really takes off.

 

[franklin]

Polaris does not always stay "True North?" The only reason it was "True North" is because someone of the searchers around the Civil War Time laid it out that way. Why would anyone bury a treasure and leave a 10 or 12 foot pointer on the shoreline to exactly where the treasure was buried? Stupid Pirates, I guess. But Pirates did not have the know how to make large works of tunnels or shafts.

The Earth's Axis shifts from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees over a period of about 40,000 years. The Earth rides up and down the scale every 12,900 odd years through two cycles of up and down, with all of these changes over years nothing stays "True North"

 

[ECS]

Your professionals not my professionals.

Are you sure your "professionals" are academic lettered legitimate acknowledged by the professional community not just charlatans pushing pulp pseudohistory to the gullible for profit?

 

[franklin]

Believe anything you want.

 

[ECS]

... The Chinese knew about the difference between Magnetic North and True Magnetic North in 1088. Guess who had a Chinese Navigator in 1395.
Yep, Antonio Zeno.
The British and Eastern Europe did not know of the difference until 1543.
So they could not have been the navigators that placed the Stones on Oak Island known today as Nolan's Cross.
Only the Knights Templar and the Chinese had that know how until the 16th Century...

No respectable legitimate professional historian accepts the ZENO NARRATIVE as being anything more than a work of fiction.
With that stated, how were the Templars the only Europeans to possess this knowledge until 1543?
Is this information from one of your nameless "professionals"?

 

[franklin]

No respectable legitimate professional historian accepts the ZENO NARRATIVE as being anything more than a work of fiction.
With that stated, how were the Templars the only Europeans to possess this knowledge until 1543?
Is this information from one of your nameless "professionals"?

Europe and England never used declination until that time. But the Chinese had been using declination since before Christ was born. Google Declination and you will find around 1543 for Europe and England.

 

[ECS]

...and how does this prove Templars or Henry Sinclair visited Oak Island?
Just unrelated random facts that doesn't.

 

[lokiblossom]

The in situ condition not being mentioned of the coir proffered for dating by either the testing lab or the "Lagina team" who have a vested interest in 14th century results for their reality show, is a major weak link in the provenance chain of possession that casts serious doubts on the C-14 dating the conclusions, especially since coconut fibre has been scientifically proven if exposed and/or buried in soli to totally biodegrade within 15 months.

So it is impossible to date, therefore you are claiming Woods Hole and Beta Analytic lied, very interesting speculation on your part!

Cheers, loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Polaris does not always stay "True North?" The only reason it was "True North" is because someone of the searchers around the Civil War Time laid it out that way. Why would anyone bury a treasure and leave a 10 or 12 foot pointer on the shoreline to exactly where the treasure was buried? Stupid Pirates, I guess. But Pirates did not have the know how to make large works of tunnels or shafts.

The Earth's Axis shifts from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees over a period of about 40,000 years. The Earth rides up and down the scale every 12,900 odd years through two cycles of up and down, with all of these changes over years nothing stays "True North"

Magnetic declination in the Halifax area is around a negative 17 degrees, which makes the use of the magnetic compass very difficult for accurate navigation, a point Samuel Champlain mentioned in his logs.

Cheers, Loki

 

[franklin]

Magnetic declination in the Halifax area is around a negative 17 degrees, which makes the use of the magnetic compass very difficult for accurate navigation, a point Samuel Champlain mentioned in his logs.

Cheers, Loki

Yes for accurate navigation. But on land the navigation with be more simple.