Templar Vault Chamber located in New Ross, Nova Scotia

[Smithbrown]

First, FinderKeeper,you do know that the chapel at Roslyn is not a round church? it is rectangular, and only half built. Round churches are actually quite rare in Britain and I know of only one which has a definite connection to the Templars, Temple church itself.
Secondly, Roslyn chapel was not built by the Templars but as a collegiate church by William Sinclair, earl of Orkney, briefly Lord Chancellor of Scotland, to pray for the souls of his family in the 1450s.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[FinderKeeper]

The New Port Tower is round and could be a church built by the Templars . No matter who built what there are 120 little green men carved in stone at Rosslyn Chapel, so someone besides Joan saw them to. That's my point.

 

[Smithbrown]

Quite a large number of people think the Newport tower is the remains of a 17th century windmill.

There are a very large number of green men surviving in art and architecture from medieval Europe; Roslin is not unique in that.

 

[Not Peralta]

Amigo's,Navigation was important, check the star charts for your answers,NP

 

[Dave Rishar]

When I read the story about the leprechauns I was just like everyone else and I thought Joan was on drugs or crazy, but now I think this story and the rest could be true.

I'm absolutely convinced that she was crazy, and I don't think that her story is true. In fact, the more that I prod at it, the more problems that I find with it and the more convinced I become that she was wrong. It's not because she was crazy though. It's because she approached the question with an answer already firmly in mind. Instead of evaluating the evidence for an answer, she attacked the evidence in order to support an existing theory. It's no surprise that she got the answer that she wanted, and I'm not surprised that this answer was incorrect.

If Joan was crazy then so were the Masons that carved 120 little green men in stone inside a church. They had to see them to or how would they know what to carve.

Not at all.

Consider the animals at the feet of effigies carved on tombs during the medieval period. Lions and dogs were generally used. There's some disagreement as to what these meant (if anything) but that's not pertinent to the conversation. What is important is that the dogs are nearly always easily identifiable as dogs, but the lions are sometimes...well, sometimes they're most easily identifiable as lions only after you're told that they're supposed to be lions. Now consider the sculptor that carved them. Had he ever seen a lion in person, or even received a good description of what one should look like? Maybe, maybe not, and we wind up with a quasi-lion. Did he know what a dog looked like? Probably, and so the dogs generally look like dogs.

When gargoyles were popular on buildings, had the sculptors ever seen a gargoyle? What about images of Satan and the angels in illuminated religious manuscripts?

Do comic book illustrators today know what Superman actually looked like?

One does not need to have seen something to reproduce it. One certainly needs to see something (or at least have on hand a good representation of the thing to be reproduced) in order to sculpt it accurately, but if it's a thing that doesn't exist, how important is accuracy?

 

[Ryano]

Wait.. Are we *really* discussing the existence of leprechauns ? ? ?!?!!!!!!!

 

[lokiblossom]

I'm absolutely convinced that she was crazy, and I don't think that her story is true. In fact, the more that I prod at it, the more problems that I find with it and the more convinced I become that she was wrong. It's not because she was crazy though. It's because she approached the question with an answer already firmly in mind. Instead of evaluating the evidence for an answer, she attacked the evidence in order to support an existing theory. It's no surprise that she got the answer that she wanted, and I'm not surprised that this answer was incorrect.

The correct word is "eccentric" Dave, not "crazy". There are many who have become eccentric as they grow older and for various reasons. One is for being constantly attacked, this being a final type of defense. Joan was not an archaeologist and she tried to make something out of her discoveries that made sense to her. I think you mentioned Caroline Leopold, or somebody did, but nobody mentioned Caroline's point about "Charing Cross". Caroline writes "Charing Cross, the central section of New Ross". I have a photo of a World War I German field gun on a stand labeled Charing Cross and located at New Ross. I also have information from the other side of the Province that does relate to Joans discoveries that will be released later this year. And lets wait and see what FinderKeepers discovers.
Joan assumed the remains she discovered were of a settlement appearing on some old maps called "Norumbega", I don't think so, but I do believe she discovered a settlement dating to well before New Ross. Perhaps we should wait a little while before we call anybody crazy. This is the last I will discuss of Joan Hope at least for now, Her friend Lisa Stone had requested that this not continue some time ago.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Dave Rishar]

The internet swallowed my post! This turns out to have been fortunate however, as I would have missed your edit otherwise.

The correct word is "eccentric" Dave, not "crazy". There are many who have become eccentric as they grow older and for various reasons. One is for being constantly attacked, this being a final type of defense.

I'm focusing on maladaptive behavior here, although there's certainly some overlap between eccentricity and insanity. She found some things and made up her mind as to what they meant. When professionals were consulted and didn't agree, she became convinced that there was a conspiracy to hide the truth. Not only was this illogical (this was not long after L'anse aux Meadows caused recorded history to be rewritten, after all), but it was potentially harmful to her own personal life.

Joan was not an archaeologist and she tried to make something out of her discoveries that made sense to her.

And when archaeologists were consulted to make sense of it, she didn't like their answers. Rather than accepting those answers or performing further research in order to prove them wrong, she simply circled the wagons. I don't like it when people prove me wrong either. When I can, I come back and prove them wrong in return and see what they do with it. When I can't, I accept the fact that I was probably wrong in the first place. I don't assume that they're simply out to get me. It may just be that they have no problem with me as a person, but merely what I'm saying. Likewise, when I'm confronted with an artifact that I don't understand and I can't figure out what it is, I ask someone that does know. I'll double check their work if I don't agree with their answer, but I'll certainly do so with the knowledge that this is what they do for a living, and not what I do. As I'm fairly methodical and tend to research things obsessively, I may just catch them in a mistake - but more than likely, they've caught me in a mistake. It sucks being wrong, but I'll have learned something in the end, and I do enjoy learning things.

I think you mentioned Caroline Leopold, or somebody did, but nobody mentioned Caroline's point about "Charing Cross". Caroline writes "Charing Cross, the central section of New Ross". I have a photo of a World War I German field gun on a stand labeled Charing Cross and located at New Ross.

I don't think that was me, and I'm not sure what a German field gun has to do with any of this.

I also have information from the other side of the Province that does relate to Joans discoveries that will be released later this year. And lets wait and see what FinderKeepers discovers.

I've stated in the past that I sincerely hope that he turns up something that, once again, flips history on its head, but I don't think that this will happen. I know that I just said that I don't like it when people prove me wrong, but sometimes I do like it. I'd like to be proven wrong here.

Joan assumed the remains she discovered were of a settlement appearing on some old maps called "Norumbega", I don't think so, but I do believe she discovered a settlement dating to well before New Ross.

She thought that she had a Norse fortress in her back yard. This makes things rather simple to prove or disprove, as we don't have to guess at how those were constructed - we have examples, and they're remarkably consistent during any particular era. Do you think that she was correct?

Yes, I know, there could have been something else there (there WAS something else there, but it was probably nothing exciting unfortunately and certainly not very old), but we're discussing the validity of Ms. Harris's claims, and this is basically the keystone of her hypothesis. I'm arguing that it's incorrect, and thus whatever comes later is questionable. The other stuff is mostly wrong as well, but let's start with ground zero.

 

[lokiblossom]

And when archaeologists were consulted to make sense of it, she didn't like their answers. Rather than accepting those answers or performing further research in order to prove them wrong, she simply circled the wagons. I don't like it when people prove me wrong either. When I can, I come back and prove them wrong in return and see what they do with it. When I can't, I accept the fact that I was probably wrong in the first place. I don't assume that they're simply out to get me. It may just be that they have no problem with me as a person, but merely what I'm saying.

You must have read Venessa Smith's biased student thesis eh? Did you happen to read any of Joan's books? Not that it would change your mind of course. Btw, the gun proves the place was called "Charing Cross". Why?
Cheers, Loki

 

[Howl]

Why, when people find something that apparently predates the British taking control of Nova Scotia in the 1750's, automatically jump to the Templers or Vikings?

The French/Acadians were active in the Province from the early 1600's until 1750's. Records from that period are sparse but they still represent the "Occam's Razor" option for anything predating 1750 in most cases. For example, it's known that the French were looking for, and likely found, gold at various places in the province, and place names like Bras d'Or, Cap D'Or and Jeddore speak to that. The Gold River runs from New Ross to Mahone Bay. There was an active gold mine at the community of Gold River from 1889 to 1940, which means it's quite possible the French also found small deposits in the area and dug them up. I think the first thing people should think of when they find shafts, pits and signs of past excavation that appears to be pre-1750 in Nova Scotia is an old mine or test pit. If you can prove it's not that, then you start looking at other possibilities. You don't jump to the most unlike, but romantic, possibility first.

 

[NostraDanis]

I have read some of Joan's books. I am surprised that I don't recall Dave being mentioned in her work. Considering his conclusive understanding of Joan's thoughts, motives and understandings I would think she would have mentioned him.

My completely amateur opinion is that she was on to something at that property, but likely misinterpreted some or many things she "discovered." The degree to which she was accurate does not change my curiosity about the location. The way in which she seems to have been blown off by the "establishment" may be because she was completely wrong, but, again, I know little of Canadian, archaeological establishment competence and motives of the 1970's.

Among the things I find interesting about the site are the geography and location of New Ross, the Charing Cross name coincidence, the age or construction of that well (and why does it reportedly have different properties than other wells in the area), many of Joan's old photos seem to show that large stone structures may have indeed been there, just to name a few. Also, Loki mentions the old maps with Norembega located, arguably, in the area. Those maps are real, and they come from a variety of sources and times, yet they all seem to locate a castle in the same spot. That's interesting.

But, most of all, I like a good puzzle. And, I for one, am thrilled that FK and his group are investing their time and resources to give this site a fair, modern look. There have certainly been grander ventures taken that were based on less concrete evidence.

 

[Dave Rishar]

You must have read Venessa Smith's biased student thesis eh? Did you happen to read any of Joan's books? Not that it would change your mind of course. Btw, the gun proves the place was called "Charing Cross". Why?
Cheers, Loki

In order:

I might have (the name does not ring a bell, but I read a lot of things and seldom bother to remember the names of the authors), yes, reading said book helped me to form my current opinion, and I'm not sure.

I hope that this helps.

 

[Dave Rishar]

I have read some of Joan's books. I am surprised that I don't recall Dave being mentioned in her work. Considering his conclusive understanding of Joan's thoughts, motives and understandings I would think she would have mentioned him.

We never met, but others have met her. The ones that did not agree with her findings tended to have opinions not dissimilar to my own. It may be a coincidence, but I don't really believe in coincidences anymore.

Am I wrong? If I am, prove it. Or don't. I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way.

I'm still waiting to hear about Norse fortifications, if anyone wishes to discuss them.

 

[lokiblossom]

Am I wrong? If I am, prove it. Or don't. I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way.

I'm still waiting to hear about Norse fortifications, if anyone wishes to discuss them.

I can't prove you wrong, you know that, just like you can't prove me wrong. You of course will say that you follow the view accepted by archaeologists today. And I will say that archaeologists have been proven wrong time and time again, such as at L'Anse aux Meadows. Helge Ingstad was working with old stories that were not accepted by the main stay historical community, but he had a premise and he followed it to a dramatic conclusion.

I thought coincidences were a natural occurrence Dave. For instance there is a 50% chance two will have the same birthday in a room of only 23 people.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Dave Rishar]

You of course will say that you follow the view accepted by archaeologists today.

Only where that view makes sense and does not contradict my own research. As an example, some (many?) think that L'Anse aux Meadows is Vinland, probably because Ingstad thought that it was Vinland and they presumably have not looked into it further than that. I don't think that it's Vinland, and you don't either. (And if anyone thought that Loki and I don't agree on anything, there you go! ) To go along with that, there's no archaeological evidence that the Norse made it down to MA, but I suspect that they did. The archaeologists (and anyone else) should feel free to talk me out of this if they wish, but they'd better bring evidence that's better than mine if they intend to be successful.

When the archaeologists talk about something that I'm interested in, I research it. If what they're saying makes sense, I go along with it. If it doesn't, I don't. They're just another source of information and opinions, to be weighed against other sources of information and opinions.

And I will say that archaeologists have been proven wrong time and time again, such as at L'Anse aux Meadows.

Indeed. And when L'Anse aux Meadows was excavated, those archaeologists, and government employees, and everyone else said, "Well, poop, there goes the neighborhood. Time to change the history books." And they did. There was no coverup. The Canadian government did not threaten anyone or suppress evidence. This is what Joan's supporters often forget - she was convinced that the world was out to get her, but the world was not out to get Ingstad, and that was a significant change to recorded history.

Would Washington, D.C. still be named as such if it were known at the time that Colombus had been beaten by five centuries?

Helge Ingstad was working with old stories that were not accepted by the main stay historical community, but he had a premise and he followed it to a dramatic conclusion.

I'm told that it was taught and accepted in Iceland that Icelanders were first, and this has been the case for a long time. I'm not surprised. The Sagas are fairly descriptive. They're considered somewhat fictitious outside of Iceland, but they're generally correct with regards to geography. It should really come as no surprise that a settlement was in Canada, but the Sagas weren't as trusted outside of Iceland in the sixties as they are today.

As for Norse fortifications, I'm still ready to discuss them when anyone else is. Joan can be forgiven for not knowing anything about them. The participants in this thread cannot be. Let's talk it out.

 

[lokiblossom]

As for Norse fortifications, I'm still ready to discuss them when anyone else is. Joan can be forgiven for not knowing anything about them. The participants in this thread cannot be. Let's talk it out.

Ok, lets discuss Norse fortifications, and what exactly are we discussing Dave?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Dave Rishar]

Ok, lets discuss Norse fortifications, and what exactly are we discussing Dave?

What Joan found in her yard, that she was convinced was a Norse fortification. It wasn't. So what was it, and does this make her a more or less reliable witness?

 

[Raparee]

"Btw, the gun proves the place was called "Charing Cross". Why?"

------------------------

Seems like this idea was proven wrong some time ago on another forum.

 

[Dave Rishar]

"Btw, the gun proves the place was called "Charing Cross". Why?"

------------------------

Seems like this idea was proven wrong some time ago on another forum.

I don't think that I'm a member on that forum. Would you mind explaining this? It was mentioned earlier in the thread and wasn't on my radar, and I'd like to know more about it.

 

[lokiblossom]

I don't think that I'm a member on that forum. Would you mind explaining this? It was mentioned earlier in the thread and wasn't on my radar, and I'd like to know more about it.

No, it was not proven wrong on another forum.

New Ross was called Charing Cross before it was called New Ross. The photo of the gun emplacement on a massive concrete stand that reads "Charing Cross" proves that is what is was called. A history of New Ross written by Caroline Leopold says that "New Ross embraces the smaller communities of Fortier, Leville, Glengarry and Seffernville, in addition to the central Charing Cross." And further writes that Charing Cross the central section of New Ross received its name in the early days of the settlement of Sherbrooke.

What was discussed on the other forum was whether or not Charing Cross received its name during the later period of the settlement or before any of the now existing settlements.

the actual Charing Cross in London is within a stones throw of the Templars London Temple. Well, at least close enough that the Templars would have watched it being built, and as a matter of fact would certainly have attended the dedication by Edward I. The monument itself was dedicated to Edwards beloved queen, Eleanor and was the most elaborate of the 12 that were built. After her death Edward had written "I loved her dearly during her lifetime... I shall not cease to love her now that she is dead".

Part of my premise is that the Templars brought the remains of their own beloved queen to Nova Scotia. It was only a few years between the dedication of the monument by Edward and the Templars escape to Scotland.

What we could not prove on the other forum was why or when Charing Cross in Nova Scotia received that particular name. And the person I was discussing it with has since died.
Cheers, Loki