My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[lokiblossom]

If you are so convinced of the accuracy of BETA ANALYTIC's dating report, why do you constantly avoid posting this report and only post one line quotes you alleged to be from this report?
What is also in that report that you don't want others to read?
95% "confidence" is NOT the same as 95% "accurate", Loki, and that 5% of doubt is always the disclaimer, along with the lack a sealed chain of custody from in situ recovery to the laboratory.
Once again, that report does not place the alleged Oak Island coir into the hands of Templars, Sinclair, or any other group, that, my friend Loki, is pure hopeful speculation on your part that is NOT supported by professional historians or the real documented historical record of the Templars and Sinclair.
Fact fabricated from fiction is fiction.

Five reports, three different labs, all similar results. Four of the reports are on line, why don't you read them before you criticize?

Remember, your professional historians and the real documented historical record didn't agree on a Viking settlement in Canada before 1960.

My feeble mind tells me that the line of viable evidence, even without delving into esoteric knowledge or secret clues indicates a Knights Templar voyage to Nova Scotia sometime shortly after 1307. Not a great fleet, but an assemblage of a few ships.

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

SSR has raised very important and valid points concerning why accuracy these Oak Island coconut coir samples from BETA ANALYTIC C-14 dating results of 14th century not being absolutely accurate dur to the lack of other tests by other laboratories that collaborate this 14th century date.
When one takes in consideration the wood and other items that were recovered from Oak Island that date to the Canadian Colonial period, it makes that 14th century conclusion all that suspect and flimsy as for evidence of Templars on Oak Island.
Evidence needs to built upon sterner stuff than coconut fibre.

If you would read the reports you would notice some wood samples have been dated to the same and even earlier periods.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

Remember, your professional historians and the real documented historical record didn't agree on a Viking settlement in Canada before 1960.

That’s right. Like any reasonable person would, they waited until definitive material evidence was found before concluding that the Norse made it to Nfld. Reading a saga and accepting it as fact without anything to corroborate it would be irresponsible.

My feeble mind tells me that the line of viable evidence, even without delving into esoteric knowledge or secret clues indicates a Knights Templar voyage to Nova Scotia sometime shortly after 1307. Not a great fleet, but an assemblage of a few ships.

There is no line of evidence that indicates a KT voyage to NS. None. All there is wishful thinking and attempts by crappy authors to sell books to those incapable of critical thought.

 

[ECS]

Five reports, three different labs, all similar results.
Four of the reports are on line, why don't you read them before you criticize? ...

Why haven't you posted these lab reports or links as has been requested instead of "claiming" what is in these reports.
What else do these reports contain that you do not want others to read?

 

[SSR]

There is a major difference between myths and legends utilized as allegories in literature and the fabrications of pseudohistory by quasi-historian charlatans that mix unconnected fact with fantasy with their secret revealed pulp history novels portrayed as true.
Returning to the "Templar theory" of this threads title, one has attempted to provide a constant connect over several centuries among many people unconnected to each other providing clues in literature, artworks, and monuments of a great secret treasure buried either on Oak Island or Annapolis Basin by Templars.
What is amazing is how this great "secret" was kept secret with all this various unrelated individuals knowing this secret to include these hidden clues in their various endeavors.
What has been presented as "evidence" is this fabulous fantasy tour through history that includes the Medieval Grail romance tales, the Cathars including a side trip with Otto Rahn, the Templar's alleged discovery in the Holy Land, banking and merchant activities, and their fall from grace arrests with 18 galleys setting to sea from La Rochelle, paintings by Poussin and Teniers, Anson's Shugborough garden folly, Priory of Sion and so on with other unrelated side trips, that cumulate with the discovery of coconut coir fibres on Oak Island that "prove" Templars, like Killroy, were here.
Even the casual history researcher know that none of these people or events are remotely connected in any way or that there was a flow of "secret" knowledge passed on to various unrelated people through the centuries and still remain secret, and realize
this is a modern phase phenomenon of created speculative pulp history published for profit to the gullible conspiracy minded.

Sure, but there are caveats. The Poussin and Teniers paintings, if you look at them from a composition point of view, use the same arrangements of concentric circles, 9 of them in fact. It becomes a short symbolic leap to then say that this is all related to the 9 levels of Enoch's chamber that is suggested to us on OI. It is likely that the Teniers painting was singled out, rather than Titian's Pieta (which also uses a same sort of composition) because of the symbolism of the subject matter. Here I'm talking of Teniers painting of Saint Anthony and St Paul. The legends associated with the depicted scene mesh entirely with a newer fiction that we get through freemasonry. St Anthony the Great is most well known for his redemption and salvation, or his successful battle to overcome human temptation. He spent two 40 year periods in the desert being supported by a raven sent by God to feed him. Tau was the symbol he wore on his cloak. The Great Tau is the symbolism that leaks into the the OI story. There are two more Taus, one was a twin to Jesus and he has a famous painting made by Rembrandt that uses wonderful evocative symbolic geometry as composition too. This triple Tau symbolism gets associated with Royal Arch Masonry Symbolism. It makes it possible anyone to then say one is closely related to the other in sort of causal relationship.

Poussin's painting is a momento mori subject matter (remember death). Haliburton writes-in a similar encounter with a tomb in his narrative which has a name with initials MM on it. The leap from MM to Mary Magdalene and Cathars is possible for any wild speculator to make here (and it has been done, believe me). Poussin's painting is actually constructed in a way to depict musical harmony in a pretty clever way. The 9 concentric circles used as composition elements have centers that fall on the bisecting line through the painting. Their relative spacings can be used to depict 8 intervals (7 of them the same and one narrower). These 8 intervals as they are shown equate to the key of F in music which has the emotive quality of peacefulness and assuredness (as it is described to us by musical composers in the Baroque period). This allows one to interpret the painting, if we wish to, as a portrayal of a muse giving calm to the shepherds as they ponder the tomb (death). The message as some have interpreted it is to not fear death, that everything is fine and that the shepherd will come and find the lamb. If you consider the key of F you' ll see that is has one flat note in it whose interval is portrayed, B. This has allowed some to see the FB suggested as a pointer to Francis Bacon. And off to the races we go with a new story line...

I think it is disingenuous to think this is ALL just nonsense. People who believe in religious ideas are prone to look and see meaning in the world that reinforces their beliefs. They are also prone to make paintings and write literature that cleverly points to things that support their beliefs. I suppose the hope is that the next guy might come along and see the symbolism and use it as proof that the whole premise is valid. It isn't. We have no reason to believe any of Christianity's stories just because we have been symbolic works that support them written after the fact.

Where I would disagree with you is that it is terrible conspiracy to go looking in art and literature for any meaning. You ought to. That is where you will discover exactly why you shouldn't believe all the suggestions you read today. There are things in them to see that are levels up from what is presumably presented. They are not imagined things. They are suggestions. You may not like the suggestion, and I certainly don't like them all, but they are not fictions. What is fake about it is often the thing they are trying to support which is often times a religious point of belief.

Most of the elements that are in the crackpots' speculations about OI actually do have a place in the sordid history of Christianity. They are being used to write treasure stories with now. So, the proper way to expose these frauds is to show exactly where they go off the rail when they interpret what they see an read. I suppose this only applies to those who have been self deluded and not to outright frauds like Pierre Plantard and his invention of the Priory of Sion. There are plenty of people who don't know **** and try to exploit what they can for a material gain. They seem to think it's fun too. We could actually include Walt Disney Studios in this sort of activity. They have corrupted more than a few minds with their presentations. It's probably fitting that they should be the parent company of History Channel today.

There is History to be written describing the use and abuse of symbolism. It's not all garbage. We have symbols and symbolism of all kinds for a reason. It originally allowed us to describe deep unknowns in ways we can relate to. I am close to believing symbolism originates in the spiritual considerations of the past. Oddly enough, that is what Francis Bacon thought too. Parallels are everywhere one wants to look. I am not so quick to say to the world that I am Francis Bacon reincarnated because we harbored same ideas as some might be if they could make a buck off of it or support their beliefs.

 

[SSR]

Five reports, three different labs, all similar results. Four of the reports are on line, why don't you read them before you criticize?

Remember, your professional historians and the real documented historical record didn't agree on a Viking settlement in Canada before 1960.

My feeble mind tells me that the line of viable evidence, even without delving into esoteric knowledge or secret clues indicates a Knights Templar voyage to Nova Scotia sometime shortly after 1307. Not a great fleet, but an assemblage of a few ships.

Cheers, Loki

You cannot agree on what you can't even consider evidence for. When something was discovered it was studied. The conclusion has been that it wasn't a Viking settlement. You are incorrect on that point. It's today thought to be (based on the evidence) a seasonal staging ground for trips that the Greenlanders made to the coast of Canada to collect wood and various materials. This was in fact suggested in the written record before it was discovered. As far as we still know there weren't any Viking settlements in Canada. At L' Anse-aux-Meadows there's evidence that one of the limited activities that occurred there was the refining of bog iron. A suggestion of a location where ships could be repaired before they crossed over to Greenland again exists based on that.

 

[ECS]

... I also have a long line of credentials related to my research which I will not discuss here.

Loki, I am quite sure that many posters on these Oak Island threads have a "long line of credentials", but it is the area of study that bestowed and the quality of these "credentials" that make ones conclusive words credible, not the claim of credentials.
If you play this I have "credentials" card as a superiority ploy to support the believability of your claimed statements of fact, you should be willing to to list those credentials to maintain some credibility.

 

[ECS]

... an easy answer is I don't want to. If you noticed I wrote "related to my research" and added "which I will not discuss here".
The reasoning is simple, my anonymity on this forum would be compromised!

If you take the importance of this "long list of credentials" so seriously that it would "compromise" your anonymity, why mention having a long list at all?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Remember, your professional historians and the real documented historical record didn't agree on a Viking settlement in Canada before 1960.

All it took to bring "my" historians(?) on line was agreement from the archeologists that there was supportive evidence. History is the written word. Archeology is the physical evidence.

That's the great advantage of the scientific method. It is very much about incorporating all the evidence.

 

[DaveVanP]

I mock those who make "something out of nothing"... consider Dan Brown a real-life "Robert Langdon", and accept fairy tales as presented in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" as true-life accounts of things that actually happened.

Nearly every wild story I have seen on this and other forums have been dreamed up - THEN the advocates seek out and attempt to find "evidence" (which they label "proof") to support their stories - rejecting evidence that does not support it, and interpreting ambiguous information in a way to support what they present - and in some cases have even manufactured FALSE "evidence".

I make no attempt to "mock composition in drawing and art" as you present. I just accept drawings and art for what they are - magnificent works, created by brilliant artists and scientists...with ABSOLUTELY NO esoteric or "hidden knowledge" concealed for the "enlightened' to interpret. DaVinci's "Last Supper" is simply the artist's imaginary interpretation of what the night before the Crucifixion MAY have looked like - regardless of the many anachronistic errors. It was painted to commemorate a significant event forming some of the basis tenets of Christianity's beliefs (humility, Communion, and "love one another"), and not to convey any "secret message" or "hidden meanings"as so many seem to insist upon.

 

[franklin]

You are welcome to your own thoughts as we are. Can your prove your point? NO.

 

[DaveVanP]

I make no claims. I have nothing to prove.

Those charlatans and deluded individuals that make the claims offer no proof, only claims made by other charlatans.

I have no qualms of "believing" in some things...but draw the line at stating categorically that something is true when nothing supports it but rumor, legend, and myth. While it is true that SOME legends and myths are BASED on actual events, MOST of them are not.

Schliemann discovered the city of Troy, based on the stories of Homer. However, the existence of Troy does not prove the existence of Priam, Achilles, Hector, Helen, Odysseus, Patroclus, Ajax, or a large wooden horse. Nothing found at the site of Troy makes any mention of these personages, or events described in the Illiad. No artifact found there has even identified the city as having the name "Troy" or any other name (later, Roman-era evidence does show the name "Ilium" but no reference being "former Troy"). Even the very existence of the present site as being the "actual Troy" of Homer has never been "Proven"...merely ACCEPTED as "likely"... it has a lot more accepted evidence of being correct than any amount of "Templars in America" yarns...or the "Holy Grail" nonsense.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I make no attempt to "mock composition in drawing and art" as you present. I just accept drawings and art for what they are - magnificent works, created by brilliant artists and scientists...with ABSOLUTELY NO esoteric or "hidden knowledge" concealed for the "enlightened' to interpret. DaVinci's "Last Supper" is simply the artist's imaginary interpretation of what the night before the Crucifixion MAY have looked like - regardless of the many anachronistic errors. It was painted to commemorate a significant event forming some of the basis tenets of Christianity's beliefs (humility, Communion, and "love one another"), and not to convey any "secret message" or "hidden meanings"as so many seem to insist upon.

Perhaps the "secret knowledge" is that Christ was actually born in Poland. At least that's the way Renaissance artists portrayed him.

 

[SSR]

I mock those who make "something out of nothing"... consider Dan Brown a real-life "Robert Langdon", and accept fairy tales as presented in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" as true-life accounts of things that actually happened.

Nearly every wild story I have seen on this and other forums have been dreamed up - THEN the advocates seek out and attempt to find "evidence" (which they label "proof") to support their stories - rejecting evidence that does not support it, and interpreting ambiguous information in a way to support what they present - and in some cases have even manufactured FALSE "evidence".

I make no attempt to "mock composition in drawing and art" as you present. I just accept drawings and art for what they are - magnificent works, created by brilliant artists and scientists...with ABSOLUTELY NO esoteric or "hidden knowledge" concealed for the "enlightened' to interpret. DaVinci's "Last Supper" is simply the artist's imaginary interpretation of what the night before the Crucifixion MAY have looked like - regardless of the many anachronistic errors. It was painted to commemorate a significant event forming some of the basis tenets of Christianity's beliefs (humility, Communion, and "love one another"), and not to convey any "secret message" or "hidden meanings"as so many seem to insist upon.

I'm sorry but you are completely mistaken on that point about Art as it was once crafted. Great Art in the sense of the Great Liberal Arts is considered a rarity today. It is that which is completely embedded with composition symbolism. Very few people think it is that today. It's imagine as some sort of artistic freedom of expression now where beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it was once a very rigid discipline and considered a difficult craft to learn. DaVinci had to be trained too. He actually departed form it quite a bit, and that is why he stands out for his time. Art in the modern sense has nothing necessarily to do with that, although it can still be produced that way. Modernity has worked to bury that and turn into an experience of Art and the tickling of the senses, incrementally. In traditional Great Art every planned ratio has meaning in the symbolic sense, every diagonal and main bisecting line has meaning and purpose (and even a name). Picasso is actually considered a great artist because he still respected a very long tradition of working in planned composition that spoke much more than the abstract that is portrayed. In great art the negative space is said to say more than the positive space which the viewer is focused on. Do you look at the Last supper and focus on the negative spaces? I'm not even sure if many artists are even trained in this any more. The last great teacher of drawing and composition in this tradition died not that long ago. I understand a following of his methods of training has ensued.

The Last Supper is not a visual representation of any imagined event, it's a laying out of a myth in a very precise mathematical fashion that demonstrates perspective and proportion. The elements in the painting aren't even people in the symbolic sense. The people represent numbers and the numbers represent polygons and Pythagorean ideas about the fundamental nature of our reality (thought of as being geometric, harmonic and layered in symmetries). The literary identities of the characters are themes in the lives of humans. The whole thing is like an expose of the nature of the human animal. One of the symbolisms in the subject matter is the drinking of the blood which is a hold out of neolithic times when it was believed that one could pass on the essence of the dead person into the living by drinking the of the blood and eating of the body of the deceased. The thing comes from the natural observation made by hunter gatherer populations of the fact that some animals ate their children when they had been killed by predators. The observation became ritual in different isolated populations on this planet. We can conclude that peoples tend to observe and then make parallels in their lives and beliefs. All of Christianity is a retelling of old myth. It has new themes injected into it that go beyond the stories in the books it was building upon. The newest myths are about the raising of one's own nature into a state of acute compassion. Those have nothing much to do with the vengeful and warring God of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is your old self in that symbolism. He must be crucified for you to raise yourself to a more "Godly" state. In the Last Supper you are encouraged to move beyond even the worst of betrayals, to show the best of yourself to your community and to allow yourself to be taken up as an example for others of the sacrifice that is required in compassion. Christianity's message is an attempt to salvage older garbage that had long since become irrelevant. Rome wasn't much interested in doomsday apocalyptic cults based in warring and vengeful Gods, to be sure.

The OI story as it was first given to us is exactly the same thing. It has nothing to do with real holes, real platforms, real chambers, real flooding or real collapses. You'd need to read that story and understand that every detail is a symbol, not a call to go looking for what is symbol in the world. The pragmatic fools that think that science will help them to answer questions or settle the thing are also missing the point. You cannot disprove what was only ever real in a symbolic sense by not finding traces of it in the world. We have only one avenue to understand all of this and that is to go back to where stories are taken from. It is a massive mistake to think that all this comes from nothing but current wild imaginations. This comes form someone making an attempt at writing a story, an allegory, with existing symbolism. Show that and explain that and you can shut up the people who think that symbols are real things in the world. You might save them the trouble of looking for Noah's Ark in Turkey and from having to read about the so-called successful expeditions that have gone there and found evidence of it. That's if you really make a good argument. if you try and gloss things over by showing up and just saying: you' re all imagining things then it's probably not going to bear fruit. You actually have to tear down every last little thing that is believed and give something else to believe in to have a chance at "conversion". No one wants to believe they were duped, that their parents were duped and that thy are in long lineage of people who have been duped.

 

[SSR]

Perhaps the "secret knowledge" is that Christ was actually born in Poland. At least that's the way Renaissance artists portrayed him.

He is you. He must be crucified and born again in a more compassionate form for the individual to be more like the perfect being he is imagined as coming from . That's the symbolic message of the allegory. Christ is born every day. He is crucified every day. You are called to be more like the perfect God you imagine as his father. It's miles apart from what it was in the Old Testament. Of course, this is just how Christian see it. A Hindu might see an anthill and tell you that every one of those ants was a God in his own Universe once. There are different ways to express different takes on the mysteries of existence. Christianity is super focused about individuals. We see that obsession in the West today with perversions around individuality and dreams of unlimited individual freedom, as if there was a personal relationship with the Universe which must respect us. Much better is it to see it as if you were as insignificant as the subject in an ant's Kingdom, IMHO.

When they get to the inner chamber of the money pit on OI they will have done what religious myth tells us is impossible. Good luck to them. It's just another way of saying we cannot know what is transcendent. It's forever a mystery. On OI it will end by saying the treasure has been removed since it ought to have been there. Spun back into a mythological belief system that is like saying you tried to work out what things are all about but you found that your life experience is obviously missing. Maybe it was taken by social media. Check Prometheus' shorts too.

 

[lokiblossom]

You cannot agree on what you can't even consider evidence for. When something was discovered it was studied. The conclusion has been that it wasn't a Viking settlement. You are incorrect on that point. It's today thought to be (based on the evidence) a seasonal staging ground for trips that the Greenlanders made to the coast of Canada to collect wood and various materials. This was in fact suggested in the written record before it was discovered. As far as we still know there weren't any Viking settlements in Canada. At L' Anse-aux-Meadows there's evidence that one of the limited activities that occurred there was the refining of bog iron. A suggestion of a location where ships could be repaired before they crossed over to Greenland again exists based on that.

Look up "Viking settlement in Canada" sometime, and check out the dictionary diffinition of the word "settlement". It is a fact that women were present and people lived there. And what difference does it make to my point if it is considered a settlement or not?

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

That’s right. Like any reasonable person would, they waited until definitive material evidence was found before concluding that the Norse made it to Nfld. Reading a saga and accepting it as fact without anything to corroborate it would be irresponsible.

The Ingstad's considered it to be fact and set out to prove it!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

He is you. He must be crucified and born again in a more compassionate form for the individual to be more like the perfect being he is imagined as coming from . That's the symbolic message of the allegory. Christ is born every day. He is crucified every day. You are called to be more like the perfect God you imagine as his father. It's miles apart from what it was in the Old Testament. Of course, this is just how Christian see it. A Hindu might see an anthill and tell you that every one of those ants was a God in his own Universe once. There are different ways to express different takes on the mysteries of existence. Christianity is super focused about individuals. We see that obsession in the West today with perversions around individuality and dreams of unlimited individual freedom, as if there was a personal relationship with the Universe which must respect us. Much better is it to see it as if you were as insignificant as the subject in an ant's Kingdom, IMHO.

When they get to the inner chamber of the money pit on OI they will have done what religious myth tells us is impossible. Good luck to them. It's just another way of saying we cannot know what is transcendent. It's forever a mystery. On OI it will end by saying the treasure has been removed since it ought to have been there. Spun back into a mythological belief system that is like saying you tried to work out what things are all about but you found that your life experience is obviously missing. Maybe it was taken by social media. Check Prometheus' shorts too.

Is this now to become a religious, or anti religious based site?

A Holy Grail or Ark of the Covenant, ect. are objects that if discovered neither prove nor disprove a religious ideal, but you are actually pushing your personal views on religion. I hope we don't devolve into that type of discussion!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The famed Shepherdess Parchment!

Considered by many to be a hoax prepetrated by Philippe de Cherisey, this is what he wrote in his alleged confession to his part in the Priory of Sion hoax!

"The article published in the Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes Scientifiques du Department de l'Aude is, in fact, the true stumbling block."

"In fact, for as long as the interested parties will be able to obtain a copy of this old issue, I will only be a semi-hoaxer;"

What de Cherisey is referring to here, is the Stele of "Marie de Negri d'Ables" which had been carved sometime between 1781 and 1792, with many obvious errors that had been PURPOSELY installed to be used for the anagram of the Shepherdess Parchment. In 1905 a copy of the Stele's inscription was made by a local archaeologist and posted in the aforementioned bulletin which was published and was still available from SESA at least until 2009 when I received a copy in the original French. In present times nobody alive has seen the Stele which was allegedly destroyed in 1906. The copy of the bulletin from 40 years prior to the alleged hoax, of the parchment in question (with its obvious errors) proves that the Stele could not have been created by the Priory of Sion hoaxers and is solid proof that the Shepherdess Parchment, hoax or not was conceived before 1905, as de Cherisey adds, "prior to my birth".

Remember, the anagram could not work without the obvious errors!

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

More totally unrelated trivia unrelated to the subject of Templars on Oak Island.
The "famed Shepherdess Parchment" never mentions the Templars, but mentions Poussin, which Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln force fit his Arcadia painting into their pulp HBHG unproven alternative cryptohistory, which others attempt attaching to their Templar voyage to Nova Scotia premise without any solid documented connection beyond imagination.