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

[franklin]

...but good for those who pick up the pen and create alternative historical events in a never ending presentation of history of the absurd.

Also ECS, and alan m. I really get tired of all the remarks about alternative crap and making fun of others research. One day you will realize you are wrong. I saved information a long time ago about the Newport Tower in Documents in the 16th Century. I have not located them as computers today are a piece of junk.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[SSR]

The test I mostly quote is one by Beta Analytic which claims a dating of between 1178-1374 with a 95% of accuracy. Most of the other tests were in the 1200 range with a +or- factor of 70 years.
Coconut fibre as coir was mostly used for ships rigging, but also for cargo packing in the Eastern Mediterranean by Arab traders during that period!
On Oak Island, there was never as much of the material as some have reported.

Cheers, Loki

95% is the confidence interval of the method. It has nothing to say about the possible carbon contamination of samples. Why do you persist is restating this? Most simply put, take a sample and willfully contaminate it with carbon and have it tested. It will give you a false result that will show 95% confidence in the reported quantities and it will tell you nothing about the contamination.

The coconut fiber sample could reliably fall within 5% time and time again and still represent a sample that was deposited in 1800. The 95% confidence interval doesn't get you past the fact the dating could be +/- 600 years. The method itself is not contributing error and will produce consistent results.

Coir was presumably not shipped to be processed there. If it was it was then a retting operation was in place. If one was in place then it means there was an establishment there already, which is fine by me because that would imply post 1761.

 

[SSR]

How could it be built in 1680? When it is on 1630 Maps?

...an error in attribution? There are people out there who have attributed things in Nova Scotia to the Chinese ca. 1430. Incorrect attribution, for whatever reason, is a common thing. Attribution itself counts for nothing.

 

[lokiblossom]

95% is the confidence interval of the method. It has nothing to say about the possible carbon contamination of samples. Why do you persist is restating this? Most simply put, take a sample and willfully contaminate it with carbon and have it tested. It will give you a false result that will show 95% confidence in the reported quantities and it will tell you nothing about the contamination.

The coconut fiber sample could reliably fall within 5% time and time again and still represent a sample that was deposited in 1800. The 95% confidence interval doesn't get you past the fact the dating could be +/- 600 years. The method itself is not contributing error and will produce consistent results.

Coir was presumably not shipped to be processed there. If it was it was then a retting operation was in place. If one was in place then it means there was an establishment there already, which is fine by me because that would imply post 1761.

I am only saying that Beta Analytic claims a dating of between 1178-1374 with a 95% accuracy. I know of their reputation for this type of dating, I don't know you, so I will assume they are correct, if you don't mind. There have been several tests of the material through the last several years and all come up within that range.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Regarding the tower/windmill - Governor Benedict Arnold (not that Benedict Arnold) was born in 1615 and died in 1678. He was the one that built a "corn mill" on the Newport site that is now called the Newport Tower. As he arrived in the United States at age 19 in 1635 and did not move to Newport until 1651 it is unlikely he had built the tower/windmill until some time later. The Island of Aquidneck (where Newport sits) was purchased from the Narragansetts in 1637.

 

[Al D]

Also ECS, and alan m. I really get tired of all the remarks about alternative crap and making fun of others research. One day you will realize you are wrong. I saved information a long time ago about the Newport Tower in Documents in the 16th Century. I have not located them as computers today are a piece of junk.

Again......who cares?

 

[jeff of pa]

Also ECS, and alan m. I really get tired of all the remarks about alternative crap and making fun of others research. One day you will realize you are wrong. I saved information a long time ago about the Newport Tower in Documents in the 16th Century. I have not located them as computers today are a piece of junk.

I Agree franklin
I Expect The Making fun Of any TreasureNet Members Research To Stop Now !

I hope I don't have to Take Stronger Actions

 

[jeff of pa]

Again......who cares?

I Do

 

[Al D]

Nobody is making fun of anyones research, we are only pointing out erroneous statements and conclusions based upon historical FACT.
and this activity grants us various name calling and insults to which the offender NEVER gets addressed.

 

[franklin]

Benedict Arnold may have renovated Newport Tower but he nor his father or his father's father built the tower. It was built by Sir Henry Sinclair and the Knight's Templar.

 

[Al D]

Benedict Arnold may have renovated Newport Tower but he nor his father or his father's father built the tower. It was built by Sir Henry Sinclair and the Knight's Templar.

Please provide some proof of your “research conclusions”

 

[jeff of pa]

Nobody is making fun of anyones research, we are only pointing out erroneous statements and conclusions based upon historical FACT.
and this activity grants us various name calling and insults to which the offender NEVER gets addressed.

Seemed To me Someone Else Started It, & You only Looked at One Person.


it may not always Excuse it, But it can Explain it.

I Don't Take things For Granted.

 

[ECS]

I Agree franklin
I Expect The Making fun Of any TreasureNet Members Research To Stop Now !

I hope I don't have to Take Stronger Actions

When someone posts information as "FACT" that is totally contrary to hard documented history, is it not common and accepted to question that information and request citing the source of that information?
Or for that matter posting links and quotes that counter these posted "facts" proving they are not quite true, but the product of quasi historians alternative pseudo history that weave real facts into their pet theories.
That is NOT making fun of any TN poster's research, but just requesting verification of highly suspect and questionable presented facts and asking for the origin of these alleged "facts".

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Multiple members are violating our rules, suggest it stop.

 

[Al D]

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic;
first, I apologize if my post have offended anyone, offense was never my intention.
I wish to question the post about Sir Henry Sinclair and his Knights Templars having built the Newport Tower.
If this is Fact, please provide evidence to support.
if it is an opinion, please provide the basis for it.
if it is fantasy, have a good day

 

[SSR]

They should all come back the same if they are taken from the same environment. They are telling you that each and every time they will test the sample they will come back within that small margin or error. That tells you nothing about the reliability of the deduced age of the sample. It tells you how very good they are at measuring the carbon ratios they are measuring. They don't know how close they are to the real date and they don't care. They are paid to do an analysis that is not going to produce a iffy result because of a bad analytical protocol. I would expect them to be very good at giving you that result. What they don't give is the probability that they can date the sample reliably. That's certainly not with 95% confidence. It may be good, but they would need secondary dating of high reliability to confirm any claim they would make. There are other techniques that can be used to try and date similar anthropologically placed material in the cove. Some of those materials are found as deep and deeper and they date to the colonial period. As far as we know we have no corroboration for .ca 1200 and therefore we have no need to go fishing for explanation in alternate history at this point.

My point is that you are, for whatever reason, misrepresenting what they are saying. You may be doing this unknowingly. It's not a matter of trusting them. It's a matter of understanding what they are telling you and not deluding yourself mistakenly. For carbon dating to be effective you must avoid carbon contamination of the sample. They can't speak to that occurrence unless they have secondary and tertiary dating methods to confirm. I have yet to see a lab result give that sort of confidence as far as OI coconut fiber goes.

 

[franklin]

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic;
first, I apologize if my post have offended anyone, offense was never my intention.
I wish to question the post about Sir Henry Sinclair and his Knights Templars having built the Newport Tower.
If this is Fact, please provide evidence to support.
if it is an opinion, please provide the basis for it.
if it is fantasy, have a good day

OK alan m., This is my last post on this subject and then we can get the thread back to what it was originally meant for. 1351 Medici-Laurentia Atlas, 1367 Catalan Atlas, 1384 Corbitis Atlas. Also in some Icelandic Manuscripts. Here is a map dated 1482 with the Newport Tower and it's latitude.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Benedict Arnold may have renovated Newport Tower but he nor his father or his father's father built the tower. It was built by Sir Henry Sinclair and the Knight's Templar.

Sorry. I see what could be nicely toasted bread or a piece of old deer leather? Nothing on that looks like a drawn structure, ring or tower. I don't even see the coastline indicated. The resolution of the images just don't cut it. And no one had Rhode Island on anyone's Atlas" of the time. Iceland and Greenland, perhaps.

It is a shame that what is legitimately one of the oldest standing structures in the United States can't be appreciated for what it is but needs fanciful embellishments to make it interesting enough for some. Or is appropriated to be presented as "evidence" of non events. Give some credit to the real historical figures who shaped New England's history.

The style is similar enough to the Chesterton Windmill built in Warwickshire (also in the 17th Century - see below) to be beyond coincidence that some fanciful trip of Scots constructed it for other purposes. And, as it is visible from the inlet, further amazing that it remained invisible when the area was settled. There is no mention of it preexisting colonization by the English in the late 1630's Or, for that matter, prior to Arnold purchasing that land.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Is this the page you referenced from the Corbitis Atlas? (East on top - the Mediterranean Sea). It doesn't even make it as far west as the Azores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbitis_Atlas#/media/File:Corbitis_Atlas_(p.3).jpg

 

[Al D]

The Catalan Atlas, it is not really an Atlas, did not exist until 1375
the Ohio State University performed C14 analysis on the mortar of the Newport Tower and determined that it was not built before 1635, recall that some people place a high regard to C14 dating and call it in as evidence of Knight Templar presence on Oak Island.