Season "3" of Curse of Oak Island

[Dave Rishar]

You must have missed the quote marks, and the "in the archives of the Vatican" eh!

No, you said, "NOW in the archives of the Vatican," as if it had not been there for centuries. This may have been what confused me. My apologies.

The testimony I included above from Jean de Chalons is contained in the Vatican Archives under; register Aven, N.48, Benedicti XII, tome L, folios 448-451,
as recorded by official Catholic Church Historian, Heinrich Finke!

I have a somewhat topical question that's slightly personal, so don't answer if you don't want to. Do you speak French?

If I were to postulate that at least some of the Templars lied under interrogation, and that most (or even all) of the Templars had a good reason to lie under interrogation, would you accept this? If you did accept this, would you agree that we should approach a Templar's testimony with the idea that they might have lied, and that we should apply a "trust but verify" approach when evaluating what they said? Before you answer this, remember that even de Molay lied his ass off, and again, I don't blame him for doing so. Breaking under torture is not indicative of a character flaw. He stuck to his guns when they burned him. Whatever he did or did not have, he had conviction. I don't personally believe in anything strongly enough to burn alive for it, but apparently he did - yet he still spoke against those beliefs when he was interrogated. What does it take to make a man do something like that, and what might it do to a lesser man? There's a story here, and while I don't think that it has anything at all to do with Oak Island, I'll bet that it's a good story all the same.

As for Heinrich Finke, I'm going to assume that you meant something other than recorded, as those testimonies would have been recorded centuries before he was born. This translation doesn't jive with the one that I looked at, but my version was in Latin and...well, I don't speak Latin, so it was a struggle. I may have made a mistake. I'd consider it a personal favor if you could tell me which of his publications (as there were many!) that this was published in, as I'm very curious about the discrepancy and I'd like to research this further.

I'm also interested in addressing those mooring stones again. Something bothered me about them and I did some poking around. I can't say for sure what they were for, but I'm now fairly certain about what they were not for. I don't believe that they're relevant to unusually early European visits, but I don't like not knowing why something was made. We should kick this one around a bit.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Honest Samuel]

Oh sure, quote a source that is impossible to investigate. You might as well say the aliens from alfa-centauri stated it.

You are correct for once, the aliens stated it.

 

[Honest Samuel]

It is one thing for divers to find items, it is another thing to bring these items up to surface.

 

[lokiblossom]

No, you said, "NOW in the archives of the Vatican," as if it had not been there for centuries. This may have been what confused me. My apologies.



I have a somewhat topical question that's slightly personal, so don't answer if you don't want to. Do you speak French?

If I were to postulate that at least some of the Templars lied under interrogation, and that most (or even all) of the Templars had a good reason to lie under interrogation, would you accept this? If you did accept this, would you agree that we should approach a Templar's testimony with the idea that they might have lied, and that we should apply a "trust but verify" approach when evaluating what they said? Before you answer this, remember that even de Molay lied his ass off, and again, I don't blame him for doing so. Breaking under torture is not indicative of a character flaw. He stuck to his guns when they burned him. Whatever he did or did not have, he had conviction. I don't personally believe in anything strongly enough to burn alive for it, but apparently he did - yet he still spoke against those beliefs when he was interrogated. What does it take to make a man do something like that, and what might it do to a lesser man? There's a story here, and while I don't think that it has anything at all to do with Oak Island, I'll bet that it's a good story all the same.

As for Heinrich Finke, I'm going to assume that you meant something other than recorded, as those testimonies would have been recorded centuries before he was born. This translation doesn't jive with the one that I looked at, but my version was in Latin and...well, I don't speak Latin, so it was a struggle. I may have made a mistake. I'd consider it a personal favor if you could tell me which of his publications (as there were many!) that this was published in, as I'm very curious about the discrepancy and I'd like to research this further.

I'm also interested in addressing those mooring stones again. Something bothered me about them and I did some poking around. I can't say for sure what they were for, but I'm now fairly certain about what they were not for. I don't believe that they're relevant to unusually early European visits, but I don't like not knowing why something was made. We should kick this one around a bit.

I can read some French, I don't know why that would be a personal question.

An important distinction is that I did not say de Chalons wouldn't lie, only that the circumstantial evidence indicates he didn't.

The testimonies were recorded from the Vatican Archives by Finke who was German btw. Certainly who did the translation to English would make a difference;
Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Tempel-Ordens, Vol. II, p339.

OK, lets talk mooring stones, I have several articles on them, for instance "The Mooring Hole Problem in Long Island Sound by Bernard W. Powell.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Jason in Enid]

I just saw a notice from John Chatterton that he is the one making the 10X dive on the upcoming episode. He is one of the top technical divers in the world, so it will be interesting to see how he fares. I'll have to set the DVR for it so I can skip all the other bs.

 

[Peyton Manning]

all the stuff "claimed" to have been found in the past has disappeared
funny there is no real evidence of anything at all there but dreams

 

[Dave Rishar]

An important distinction is that I did not say de Chalons wouldn't lie, only that the circumstantial evidence indicates he didn't.

Extremely circumstantial evidence. No one today knows for sure whether he lied or not, but everything piece of information that someone gives up under those circumstances is suspect. If it checks out later, great, but I'd caution anyone against building a theory around such testimony or giving it too much attention.

The testimonies were recorded from the Vatican Archives by Finke who was German btw. Certainly who did the translation to English would make a difference;
Finke, Papsttum und Untergang des Tempel-Ordens, Vol. II, p339.

In retrospect, that was a rather obvious answer. Looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks for the reference!

OK, lets talk mooring stones, I have several articles on them, for instance "The Mooring Hole Problem in Long Island Sound by Bernard W. Powell.

That was a rather interesting article, and thank you for sharing it. There are however some problems with it, as could be expected from the date of publication - 1958. That was a surprisingly long time ago with regards to what we've learned about the Norse through archaeological evidence. Hell, L'anse aux Meadows hadn't been excavated yet, and we can all agree that this was a bit of a game-changer.

The main issue that I have with the mooring stones is that this wasn't typically how the Norse secured their boats. I won't say that this was never done because the technology and the rocks were both available, but tying a boat to the shore in the absence of a pier or marina is generally a very bad idea for a number of reasons. We actually don't even have to speculate on what they normally did with their boats because they were kind enough to write it down, and their methods not only made sense then, but still make sense today. The preferred methods for dealing with the boat were to either anchor it out or beach it - again, exactly what you'll see today in areas without piers or marinas. Then as now, the particular method used depended on the situation. If it was physically impossible to get the boat up on the beach, you'd anchor it. If you weren't going to be there for long, you'd probably anchor out in that case as well. Generally though, they'd want to beach the boat if they could, and if it was going to be layed up for the winter, beaching was basically a necessity.

Here's a little shot of what I'm talking about.



What we don't want today, and what the Norse certainly didn't want back then, was their most important piece of equipment getting tossed up against rocks, ground back and forth across gravel for extended periods of time, or even breaking loose and floating off. Another concern is that seawater isn't kind to water craft of any sort - not metal, not fiberglass, and definitely not the wood that they were using back then, particularly after around 1100 AD or so. We don't know for sure what they treated their wood with besides paint, or even if there was a sort of an industry standard for it, but we do know that whatever treatment that they used, it wasn't proof against wood borers because they mentioned that it was a concern, and there are one or two stories that I recall of ships being lost to it. Anchoring the boat won't protect it against marine organisms, but if it's impossible to beach it...well, you do what you have to do.

As for what they anchored boats with, we don't have to guess about that either. Anchors have been recovered. The better ones were made of iron, like the one from the Oseberg ship, while the less expensive option appears to be a stone in a wooden bracket - no drilling required, and the only tool required to make one would have been an axe. (Actually, a cutting tool would not be strictly necessary, but it would make things a lot easier.)

One could make an argument that perhaps a boat was beached at high tide, but could not be dragged any further and there was a concern about a possible high tide carrying the vessel away. I would think that the anchor would be sufficient to keep the ship in place, but perhaps the anchor had been lost somehow. Drilling a hole through a stone would be more work than chopping down a forked branch and lashing it to the stone instead, but perhaps this would be more desirable for some reason. In that case, I'd argue that if we're going to tie the boat off to something on land, wouldn't a tree make more sense? If there aren't any trees nearby, why not loop the mooring line around the base of the rock instead of drilling it? Or hell, why not sail for another hour and find a better place to stop?

As for drilled stones that are underwater, the argument against mooring is a bit stronger. The level of the ocean from 1000-1400 AD was just about where it is today, plus or minus up to a foot either way depending on who you ask. This tells me that if they were drilled by the Norse, it was done out of water and then the stones were placed there. I don't think that this was the case either. Rope (whether made of fiber or especially walrus skin) was too valuable of a commodity to simply cut whenever the boat was to be launched - when you were done with the rope, you untied it. I suppose that someone could have swam down there to do this, but now it's getting a bit silly.

So, assuming that we can't rule out all of the holes for other known possible causes, what does that leave us with? I don't know. I have no theory on what those holes for. I just don't think that they were for mooring Norse ships. It's possible that this was exactly what they were for, but based on the available evidence, I don't think that this is the case.

This discussion has reminded me how long it's been since I last read the Sagas, so I'll be working on that as time allows. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

There is no real "set" rule of how the Norse may have secured ships. The exploration vessels were the longboats - there are various kinds but all have shallow draft and the ability to be rowed up rivers and beached in their designs. These were also the warships/raiding ships. Fast in - fast out. They were also used where a portage may be necessary. And the Norse would occasionally move a boat miles where the terrain required it (they had two routes that went from the Baltic to the Black Sea and one, the "long portage" route that went as far as the Caspian Sea via the Volga River with almost as much carting & carrying as sailing & rowing).

The cargo ships were much stockier and used once a sea route was established. These may well have been moored or anchored off shore. A four-oared faering - like a later whaleboat - would then be used to ferry men and cargo ashore. These would be carried aboard the cargo ships when passage making.

 

[Robot]

"For a Knights Templar..No Wind is Favorable..When He Knows Not Which Port He Goes"

Came across this old posting explaining the "Difficulty" that a ship of the Knights Templar would have crossing the Atlantic in the 14th Century.



by n4n224ccw Mar 30, 2012
"Far beyond the reaches of this forum can be found many interesting articles which argue against any transatlantic voyage by proper KT during the early 1300s. Ship designs of the day had them barely able to endure storms of the Mediterranean. They could hold the Atlantic coast during calm weather but beyond that they could not survive storms. The European ships of the day were not very large at all and is best illustrated by sacrificing fresh water stores for additional passengers or cargo. There are some texts which detail these ships were limited to four or five days at sea due to fresh water capacity. Additionally, ship designs of the period did not suit them for tacking into the wind, a sailing technique that was required for an east to west northern transatlantic crossing. This sail design and method did not come into play for Europeans until the early 1400s. Finally, navigational methods of the day rarely had a ship beyond the sight of land, save instances when leaving one port in the direction of another port by using a star as guidance.

It is not until the early 1400s when Portugal, with the assistance of Iberian Jews and Moors, took the lead on ship and sail designs, along with solving the mathematics required for beyond horizon navigation. This of course was the ability to only solve for one's latitude and only gave one the ability to return home.

An early 1300s direct transatlantic crossing seems beyond the technical reach of any European during the 1300s. One could suggest a blind sailing course and hope for the best; but the real hope would be in eventually returning home. Hypothetically suggesting such a trip did occur which resulted in gaining the North American coast, in the absence of an ability to know one's latitude, how does one revisit the site? The Portuguese who were at the forefront of navigation during the 1400 and 1500 and who possessed good charts and navigational instruments still needed known land markers to confirm their latitude. Read about the function of their Padrao markers.

While a direct transatlantic crossing is out of the question, a UK — Iceland — Greenland — North America trip was within a 1300 century European's ability. This route was used by the Vikings for about 200 years and is the suggested route for Henri Sancto Claro's supposed trip towards the end of the 14th Century. This would of course mean our out KT possessed exclusive knowledge of this route while other Europeans and their contemporary Orders did not. There were no maps pointing this route, only experienced navigators using the stars for their course.

Fortunately the records from Iceland and to a lesser extent a declining Greenland colony do survive to this day. There is no mention of a KT fleet arriving in either location or any foreign fleet arriving which would be the case, should an event like that have happened. In any event a visit like this during the early 1300s would have been mentioned because supply ships were on the decline and were failing to come every year. Additionally one needed permission from the King of Scandinavia to visit both colonies as was the practice to monopolize trade. We can see in the record for unauthorized Bristol traders visiting and Iceland and the diplomatic problems which resulted from that.

The absence of a record, where a record should reasonably exist is troubling. Perhaps the KT had a member who knew which stars to follow from Bristol to Iceland, to Greenland, then to North America?
This of course would suggest the English knew how to navigate to North America during the early 1300s, but is not the case. Perhaps the KT picked up an Englishman for the UK to Iceland leg, then a Scandinavian for the Iceland and beyond leg? If that were to be the case there is no record, especially for obtaining the services of someone in Iceland.

Either way, the KT would have needed different ships than those they supposedly departed LaRochelle for ships worthy of the UK/Iceland/Greenland/North America voyage.

'Processus factus contra Templarios in Scotia, 1309' details the trial of Knights Templar in England, Scotland and Ireland. This document survives to this day and gives credible testimony to indicate any KT who landed on English, Scottish, or Irish shores would be been arrested.

Considering the hearsay secret departure from LaRochelle happened in October and when combined with a supposed cargo of immense value, this should suggests these folks would have been more cautious or prudent and not subjected themselves to the mercy of the sea.

An absence of supporting documents does make a theory difficult to defend, but it does offer exploring other ideas to their final conclusion."

 

[Throbhammmer]

Hi Everyone. Look forward to the next few episodes. This has to be a make a break time for the show. I can't imagine a season 4 with just more of the same.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Hi Everyone. Look forward to the next few episodes. This has to be a make a break time for the show. I can't imagine a season 4 with just more of the same.

Why not? They've done it for 3 years and your still watching, so why would they not drag this out as long they are still making money from it?

 

[lokiblossom]

Came across this old posting explaining the "Difficulty" that a ship of the Knights Templar would have crossing the Atlantic in the 14th Century.

View attachment 1262055

by n4n224ccw Mar 30, 2012
"Far beyond the reaches of this forum can be found many interesting articles which argue against any transatlantic voyage by proper KT during the early 1300s. Ship designs of the day had them barely able to endure storms of the Mediterranean. They could hold the Atlantic coast during calm weather but beyond that they could not survive storms. The European ships of the day were not very large at all and is best illustrated by sacrificing fresh water stores for additional passengers or cargo. There are some texts which detail these ships were limited to four or five days at sea due to fresh water capacity. Additionally, ship designs of the period did not suit them for tacking into the wind, a sailing technique that was required for an east to west northern transatlantic crossing. This sail design and method did not come into play for Europeans until the early 1400s. Finally, navigational methods of the day rarely had a ship beyond the sight of land, save instances when leaving one port in the direction of another port by using a star as guidance.

It is not until the early 1400s when Portugal, with the assistance of Iberian Jews and Moors, took the lead on ship and sail designs, along with solving the mathematics required for beyond horizon navigation. This of course was the ability to only solve for one's latitude and only gave one the ability to return home.

An early 1300s direct transatlantic crossing seems beyond the technical reach of any European during the 1300s. One could suggest a blind sailing course and hope for the best; but the real hope would be in eventually returning home. Hypothetically suggesting such a trip did occur which resulted in gaining the North American coast, in the absence of an ability to know one's latitude, how does one revisit the site? The Portuguese who were at the forefront of navigation during the 1400 and 1500 and who possessed good charts and navigational instruments still needed known land markers to confirm their latitude. Read about the function of their Padrao markers.

While a direct transatlantic crossing is out of the question, a UK — Iceland — Greenland — North America trip was within a 1300 century European's ability. This route was used by the Vikings for about 200 years and is the suggested route for Henri Sancto Claro's supposed trip towards the end of the 14th Century. This would of course mean our out KT possessed exclusive knowledge of this route while other Europeans and their contemporary Orders did not. There were no maps pointing this route, only experienced navigators using the stars for their course.

Fortunately the records from Iceland and to a lesser extent a declining Greenland colony do survive to this day. There is no mention of a KT fleet arriving in either location or any foreign fleet arriving which would be the case, should an event like that have happened. In any event a visit like this during the early 1300s would have been mentioned because supply ships were on the decline and were failing to come every year. Additionally one needed permission from the King of Scandinavia to visit both colonies as was the practice to monopolize trade. We can see in the record for unauthorized Bristol traders visiting and Iceland and the diplomatic problems which resulted from that.

The absence of a record, where a record should reasonably exist is troubling. Perhaps the KT had a member who knew which stars to follow from Bristol to Iceland, to Greenland, then to North America?
This of course would suggest the English knew how to navigate to North America during the early 1300s, but is not the case. Perhaps the KT picked up an Englishman for the UK to Iceland leg, then a Scandinavian for the Iceland and beyond leg? If that were to be the case there is no record, especially for obtaining the services of someone in Iceland.

Either way, the KT would have needed different ships than those they supposedly departed LaRochelle for ships worthy of the UK/Iceland/Greenland/North America voyage.

'Processus factus contra Templarios in Scotia, 1309' details the trial of Knights Templar in England, Scotland and Ireland. This document survives to this day and gives credible testimony to indicate any KT who landed on English, Scottish, or Irish shores would be been arrested.

Considering the hearsay secret departure from LaRochelle happened in October and when combined with a supposed cargo of immense value, this should suggests these folks would have been more cautious or prudent and not subjected themselves to the mercy of the sea.

An absence of supporting documents does make a theory difficult to defend, but it does offer exploring other ideas to their final conclusion."

The author of this article unfortunately passed away. I have discussed this with him at length and I must say I have disagreed with almost every point. My thread "abbreviated theory" covers much of it, and I'm sorry but I feel that is all the response I can give your post Robot.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Robot]

With Time All "Evidence for Oak Island" may slowly be "Eroded or Buried"!

The author of this article unfortunately passed away. I have discussed this with him at length and I must say I have disagreed with almost every point. My thread "abbreviated theory" covers much of it, and I'm sorry but I feel that is all the response I can give your post Robot.
Cheers, Loki

A joke "About" us Canadians!

Was trying to locate copies of the first 2...Coconut Carbon Dating Reports.. but now all my webpage references back to oakislandtreasure.co.uk have been deleted, as this web page no longer exists.

This Carbon Dating Report is of interest as it points out these Coconut Fibers were species from Manila around 1100ad and possibly from a Ship!

 

[etex]

Please put on your lab coats and safety glasses before posting any comments

 

[zendog64]

My opinion is that there isn't any treasure on Oak island at all and there never was. Are we to believe that the Aztecs, Templars, Masons, Romans, pirates, and everyone on the planet who had treasure to hide all managed to somehow pick out the exact same tiny nondescript island off the coast of Canada? If people have been looking for this treasure for 200 years and still havent found it, it's pretty safe to assume it doesn't exist.

Come to think of it, if I had been a pirate, there's no way in hell I'd ever hide anything on Oak Island. For a secret hiding place, it seems everyone from Christopher Columbus to Montezuma knew about the spot. Instead, I wouldve hid my loot on one of those other tiny islands you see in the aerial shots of Oak Island. Nobody's looking there!

 

[Honest Samuel]

I believe that pirate buried treasure on Oak Island, Wait and see.

 

[Icewing]

I can't be the only one who thinks Craig is George W Bush's secret twin brother?

 

[jeff of pa]

I can't be the only one who thinks Craig is George W Bush's secret twin brother?

I've been noticing that since episode 1 I thought I was the only one.
it makes it very hard for me to Like his character, Even though he's only been given maybe 5 lines since the show began.
and even so he does seem like a normal non-criminal type.

 

[whitjake]

Nothing like a Lab telling you that you have JUNK

 

[Jason in Enid]

Watching those idiots tromp around the woods with a cell phone and a measuring tape was as funny as watching them get duped with that fake sword. They obviously have zero clue how to conduct true land-nav operations. There is about a 1 in a 1000 chance they actually ended up where they thought they were.