Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

lokiblossom said:
There are no other references to it in the Atlantic Basin prior to 1499 outside of the Eastern Mediterranean. It did exist throughout the Far East, Indian Ocean and Pacific Basin.

Cheers, Loki
Click to expand...

Other than a couple hundred Spanish explorers (of which few were literate), who would have made such a focused botanical survey? As sailors, they would have likely been familiar with coconut/palm trees, and would not have thought their presence or absence in the Caribbean as unusual. Did the "first mention" (1499) you reference remark that the presence of the trees was unusual in any way?

Don't some Olmec and/or Maya artifacts/drawings illustrate trees appearing to be palms? Olmecs pre-date the Europeans' arrival by nearly 2000 years; the Maya by 500.
 

DaveVanP said:
Other than a couple hundred Spanish explorers (of which few were literate), who would have made such a focused botanical survey? As sailors, they would have likely been familiar with coconut/palm trees, and would not have thought their presence or absence in the Caribbean as unusual. Did the "first mention" (1499) you reference remark that the presence of the trees was unusual in any way?

Don't some Olmec and/or Maya artifacts/drawings illustrate trees appearing to be palms? Olmecs pre-date the Europeans' arrival by nearly 2000 years; the Maya by 500.
Click to expand...

I posted two different recent scientific studies which proved that coconuts did not exist in the Atlantic or Caribbean before being introduced by Portuguese sailors in 1499. One of these (the most revealing), is "Coconuts in the Americas", published 2013, authors; Charles Clement, Daniel Zizumbo-Villarreal, Cecil Brown, Alessandro alves-Pereira and Hugh Harries.

Their conclusion, a quote; "It has been clearly established that the Portuguese introduced coconuts to the Cape Verde Islands in 1499, and these supplied the Atlantic Coast and the Caribbean in the 1500s."

The second study was from "Independent Origin of Cultivated Coconuts in the Old World Tropics", published 2011 by Par K. Ingvarsson.

conclusion from section describing Atlantic source, quote; "Historical records indicate that coconut was unknown in the Caribbean and Atlantic Basins until after European Colonization." followed by several references.

Cheers, Loki
 

Last edited:
So, either the authors are wrong and the fibers are older, or the authors are correct and the fibers are younger . . . or not coconut coir at all.

And this proves or signifies what in regards to Oak Island?
 

lokiblossom said:
I posted two different recent scientific studies which proved that coconuts did not exist in the Atlantic or Caribbean before being introduced by Portuguese sailors in 1499. One of these (the most revealing), is "Coconuts in the Americas", published 2013, authors; Charles Clement, Daniel Zizumbo-Villarreal, Cecil Brown, Alessandro alves-Pereira and Hugh Harries.

Their conclusion, a quote; "It has been clearly established that the Portuguese introduced coconuts to the Cape Verde Islands in 1499, and these supplied the Atlantic Coast and the Caribbean in the 1500s."

The second study was from "Independent Origin of Cultivated Coconuts in the Old World Tropics", published 2011 by Par K. Ingvarsson.

conclusion from section describing Atlantic source, quote; "Historical records indicate that coconut was unknown in the Caribbean and Atlantic Basins until after European Colonization." followed by several references.

Cheers, Loki
Click to expand...
All this while still ignoring the fact that Columbus found coconuts when he landed in 1492
 

alan m said:
All this while still ignoring the fact that Columbus found coconuts when he landed in 1492
Click to expand...

Not very many would take a note by Columbus that in 1492 he found a nut that looked like an Indian type over several modern scientific studies. Especially since finding India was what his investors were paying him for, not sure what his credibility was in that regard, are you? Btw, I don't remember reading that he found India, do you?

Cheers, Loki
 

Last edited:
Must be. We still call the American aboriginals "Indians"

And Columbus also recorded in his logbook that on the 9th of January, 1493 he saw "three mermaids".
 

Last edited:
That must have been the night CC finished his last bottle of spirits.
 

lokiblossom said:
There were many different C-14 datings, all by reputable organizations, most by Beta Analytic. The fibre was not from the alleged money pit, some coming from the vicinity of Smiths Cove other samples came from the Oak Island Museum. And there were some wood samples dated from earlier then the fibre, along with some charcoals from much earlier. Many have tried to discredit the C-14 dating, but all of the labs have furnished elaborate data sheets showing the various margins for error. There are 56 pages of this data available which I also have in my collection plus a couple of others from other sources.

If this scientific information isn't acceptable than I suggest writing Beta Analytic and get their opinion.

Cheers, Loki
Click to expand...

Luckily for me I'm an analytical chemist by training. There is no discussion of analytical methods and their attributable confidence that will inform anyone about the possible contamination of their samples no matter how many pages are included in the description of what they are doing. An analytic scientist is flying blind as to what contamination may have occurred when he is given a sample. I received many samples when I was doing analysis, and one has no way of knowing what one is dealing with even if the method is well accepted to measure what is given. The confidence level of the method is not confidence that you are measuring anything that isn't compromised. You simply know you are measuring error (or not) with little influence by the method (might be 5% error in that). The only way one is really informed is by corroborating with other dating techniques. One could presumably date carbon sources to pre 1400 if they are preserved in anaerobic environments like packed mud. Then we get into whether or not the material has anthropological significance. In my opinion I have seen nothing from the many lists of dated material to inspire confidence that there is anything there that we can accept a pre colonial era attribution to the works found in the cove. The human remnants all seem to date to, at the earliest (with dendrochrnology), to the German/NE Planter settler period. It appears to be consistent with the reuse of early building materials later also. If we cannot eliminate that scenario then we are not even capable of dating some of the interesting cove works to much before 1850.

I don't have to write a letter and discuss anything because I know the nature of the exercise. I know what these labs will put out to inspire trust in their abilities (which is in no doubt). They will state that they are reporting things with great confidence, but that is not telling you your sample is representative of anything. This is not an assault on carbon dating per se. It's a statement about the contamination and trustworthiness of samples taken in certain environments. Carbon dating is going to be affected by carbon contamination. If all the fiber is from the cove and from the same period there is every reason to assume there should be some uniformity in the result.

Hope that helps you to understand where I come from. I'm not immediately impressed with very high confidence intervals. They don't mean what most assume they mean. If you ran a lab you would not promote any aspect that lowers the potential value of the analytical result. You would talk about how your end of the deal is not contributing any more error. It really is one set of data points that must be corroborated.
 

Charlie P. (NY) said:
So, either the authors are wrong and the fibers are older, or the authors are correct and the fibers are younger . . . or not coconut coir at all.

And this proves or signifies what in regards to Oak Island?
Click to expand...
Loki is convinced that proof for Templar travels is in the trail of coconut coir they leave behind.
 

I understand coconuts were one method of travel in medieval times.

Coconuts.jpg
 

Charlie P. (NY) said:
I understand coconuts were one method of travel in medieval times.

View attachment 1801569
Click to expand...

I think the clip cloping was made with two coconut shells clapping together. Perhaps a link.:laughing7:

An associate of mine has a good friend who has spent over 30 years in France exploring French Templar sites. He does not subscribe to the English speaking view of Templar crossing any ocean. When asked he smiled that was English speakers obsession. He had some awesome photographs of dungeons of old castles and Templar religious engravings.

Kanacki
 

Have you, Loki, or have you not stated many times over, that Coconut coir is "evidence" of a Templar presence on Oak Island and Nova Scotia?
Why are you now misrepresenting you oft repeated claim?
 

DaveVanP said:
BRILLIANT! You have solved the riddle of how coconuts came to the New World: Not Templars...SWALLOWS! (either African or European; that requires more study)
Click to expand...

There is no riddle, it has been proven that the Portuguese brought coconuts to the so-called New World in 1499: Not Templars or Swallows.

Cheers, Loki
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Munit Haec et Altera Vincit

⬅️ Previous Thread

Oak Island - the real mystery is if there even is a mystery?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top