The Knights Templar connection to Oak Island Challenge

[lokiblossom]

It is interesting that you "premised" a stay at Ardchattan Priory after stating you have read their official sites where their official legitimate historians have discounted the Templar staying and connection as myth and lore.
So why would you "premise" information that by your own admission knowing it was discredited as false by historians?
That and your not revealing these "credited Templar historians" you always reference, along with your claims of being trapped" by questions posted by others as you cast snide retorts, does cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the information you post.

You still don't read very well, or is it disinformation? I said very little was known about the early events at Ardchattan. The persons you call Ardchattan historians don't even agree on the date of Robert the Bruce's secret meeting there, or what it was about. There is no way historians would have known about a few Templar ships wintering in the Loch. Oh, and I did mention the Templar historians earlier in this thread but somehow you must have missed it, or did you, hmm?

Yep, even with all your so-called information, I still premise a few ships wintering at Ardchattan in 1307-08, then leaving for Vinland following the Viking routes, eventually dropping cargo holds filled with coconut fibre on Oak Island.

Of course I still premise 18 Templar vessels leaving La Rochelle in September of 1307!

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[xaos]

Of course I still premise 18 Templar vessels leaving La Rochelle in September of 1307!

And the vessels certainly did NOT go to Oak Island. there is absolutely NO evidence the Templar sailed to North America in the 1300's, 1400's, 1500's, nor anytime.

The quest should be looking at where did the Templars go with their vast treasure?

1. to Oak Island. NO
2. To the vast mountain caverns between Spain and France. YES.

 

[ECS]

... Oh, and I did mention the Templar historians earlier in this thread but somehow you must have missed it, or did you, hmm?...

You made reference to "the authors of "HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL"
(Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln) and Otto Rahn, all can hardly be considered as "credited Templar historians", and many of your discussion seem similar to the book "THE LOST TOMB OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR" by Ben Hammott real name, Bill Wilkinson.
Beyond those mentioned above, I did not read any other names of these "credited Templar historians", just your paraphrases alleged to be from these experts.

Robert McCrum, THE OBSERVER NEWSPAPER editor summed it up best with his article concerning all these Templar/Grail books:
"There is a lot of history being published and people mistake this type of history for the real thing. These kink of books do appeal to an enormous audience who believe them to be history...but they aren't history, they are a kind of parody of history".

 

[ECS]

You still don't read very well, or is it disinformation? ...

I do read well, my friend Loki, including the suspect quasifacts you post that are found to be highly questionable as are your unnamed ( except for those listed in post #443) "credited Templar historians" you refuse to mention .
Is this only misinformation, or disinformation on your part, or are your snarky put downs of others just a way of avoiding providing actual real connecting facts to these maybe, could be "premises" you post that lack hard foundations.

 

[lokiblossom]

And the vessels certainly did NOT go to Oak Island. there is absolutely NO evidence the Templar sailed to North America in the 1300's, 1400's, 1500's, nor anytime.

The quest should be looking at where did the Templars go with their vast treasure?

1. to Oak Island. NO
2. To the vast mountain caverns between Spain and France. YES.

You could very well be partially correct as I never premised all 18 vessels sailing to Nova Scotia!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

I do read well, my friend Loki, including the suspect quasifacts you post that are found to be highly questionable as are your unnamed ( except for those listed in post #443) "credited Templar historians" you refuse to mention .

Ok, here we go again, please remember these names as I'm sure we will be discussing them for awhile!

First a few Templar Historians whose quotes and information I use and sometimes follow, though not always.

1, Charles Addison

2, Michael Haag

3, Piers Paul Read

4, Not necessarily a Templar Historian but a very good work on the Cathar's, Otto Rahn

5, Not really a history at all but mostly speculation, remembering that it was researched before Al Gore invented the internet, some turned out correct and some mistaken, The authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail

6, Myself, I consider myself somewhat of a Templar Historian!

There are more of course but these should suffice for the time being!

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

First a few Templar Historians whose quotes and information I use and sometimes follow, though not always.

1, Charles Addison
2, Michael Haag
3, Piers Paul Read
4, Not necessarily a Templar Historian but a very good work on the Cathar's, Otto Rahn
5, Not really a history at all but mostly speculation,... some turned out correct and some mistaken, The authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail
6, Myself, I consider myself somewhat of a Templar Historian!

An interesting list, but not a real academic "credited historian" included in that list, just amateur historians who can, and have embellished, and many times fabricated, the facts
1. Charles G Addison, a Victorian era barrister, and amateur historian, whose 1840's Templar series detailed their activities during the Crusades.
As a barrister, he was a member of the "INNER TEMPLE", the Four Courts of Courts of which all barristers and judges in England belong. The name "Inner Temple" derives from the FACT that it was Templar property until 1312.
On his book:
"Interesting history on the Templars and the Temple Church in England, very good but skipped...what happened to the Knights who escaped..." Larry Hyman
2. Michael Haag, a historical novelist, and alternative historian.
On his Templar book:
" Michael Haag cuts through an enormous spread of history. The after-history of the Templars is dominated by the imaginings of Freemasons and the conspiracy fancies of scarcely distinct alternative historians and novelists"- THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
3. Piers Paul Read, historical novelist, alternative historian.
On his Templar books:
"A decent reed on the Knights Templar, acknowledging the conspiracy theories and pseudo-histories in a chapter toward the end of the book"- Pedro Pascoe
4. Otto Rahn, obsessive Grail legend fanatic whose work is dismissed by every legitimate academic historian.
5. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, another group of alternative historians.
Lincoln received some of his "facts" from Ben Hammott (real name, Bill Wilkinson), another charlatan alternative historian and author of "THE LOST TOMB OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR"
6. It is now obvious why you included yourself in this less that august list.

You have stated many times that your sources were "credited Templar historians", so I ask-what academic organization accredited these amateur alternative historians?

 

[sasquash]

Ok, here we go again, please remember these names as I'm sure we will be discussing them for awhile!

First a few Templar Historians whose quotes and information I use and sometimes follow, though not always.

1, Charles Addison

2, Michael Haag

3, Piers Paul Read

4, Not necessarily a Templar Historian but a very good work on the Cathar's, Otto Rahn

5, Not really a history at all but mostly speculation, remembering that it was researched before Al Gore invented the internet, some turned out correct and some mistaken, The authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail

6, Myself, I consider myself somewhat of a Templar Historian!

There are more of course but these should suffice for the time being!

Cheers, Loki

You can add :

Barbara Frale
Dan Jones

 

[Al D]

You can add :

Barbara Frale
Dan Jones

Also William F Mann and Juan Garcia Atienza

 

[ECS]

...and of course they are all as Loki would say "credited Templar historians" not accredited historians from university with their work reviewed and conclusions accepted and validated by a panel of academic peers and the academic community, then published. That is accreditation standards.
Now, who in all those mentioned "credited Templar historians" have met those university academic accreditation standards, been reviewed, and had their conclusions approved and validated by a panel of academic peers and the academic community?

 

[ECS]

Ah. The ones who claim "history is not what you've been taught" because their textbooks were simplifications provided by the lowest bidder to get them through high-school, and then support it even worse with false premises.

That probably is why they believe what OBSERVER NEWSPAPER editor, Robert McCrum referred to as "parody of history" and appeals to those who believe a conspiracy of withheld knowledge has existed for centuries by secret societies, and what is taught in schools is what these cabals want you know as a form of control.

 

[ECS]

Oh yes, I post "Speculative Theories" ....
I assume your idea of "Legitimate" is the author presents his name with "Dr." in front of it, and in reality all they are doing is publishing their "Theory".
As for my sources of information, what does it matter.
They would be accepted by a few in this group do to the fact they wouldn't be deemed as "Legitimate".
The telling of history can be obscured to control the narrative, it is all in the person telling it.
Basing a belief on what isn't there instead of what is isn't research...

You assume that real academics with or without a Dr on front, do not have to go through an accreditation reviews process and validation by a panel of peers before publication. They do.
These quasi pseudo historians Do Not!
That is why their works contain maybe, could embellishments based on "what isn't there".
Is there a reason behind your obvious hostile disdain for the legitimate university academic community and accredited academics?

 

[lokiblossom]

An interesting list, but not a real academic "credited historian" included in that list, just amateur historians who can, and have embellished, and many times fabricated, the facts
1. Charles G Addison, a Victorian era barrister, and amateur historian, whose 1840's Templar series detailed their activities during the Crusades.
As a barrister, he was a member of the "INNER TEMPLE", the Four Courts of Courts of which all barristers and judges in England belong. The name "Inner Temple" derives from the FACT that it was Templar property until 1312.
On his book:
"Interesting history on the Templars and the Temple Church in England, very good but skipped...what happened to the Knights who escaped..." Larry Hyman
2. Michael Haag, a historical novelist, and alternative historian.
On his Templar book:
" Michael Haag cuts through an enormous spread of history. The after-history of the Templars is dominated by the imaginings of Freemasons and the conspiracy fancies of scarcely distinct alternative historians and novelists"- THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
3. Piers Paul Read, historical novelist, alternative historian.
On his Templar books:
"A decent reed on the Knights Templar, acknowledging the conspiracy theories and pseudo-histories in a chapter toward the end of the book"- Pedro Pascoe
4. Otto Rahn, obsessive Grail legend fanatic whose work is dismissed by every legitimate academic historian.
5. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, another group of alternative historians.
Lincoln received some of his "facts" from Ben Hammott (real name, Bill Wilkinson), another charlatan alternative historian and author of "THE LOST TOMB OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR"
6. It is now obvious why you included yourself in this less that august list.

You have stated many times that your sources were "credited Templar historians", so I ask-what academic organization accredited these amateur alternative historians?

Your attempt to discredit a few of the good and respected Templar Historians is well noted and expected as usual! Also you should look up the definitions for the word "accredited".

At this point, after arguing with you for umpteen pages, I should ask, what exactly did Charles Addison, Michael Haag or Piers Paul Read write that you don't agree with, as I don't believe either of them write anything that supports an alternative history of the Templar Order?

Your statement about Ben Hammott proves what you really know about the subject. For many years I was a member of a forum owned by Andrew Gough called Aracdia in which the book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" was the main subject of discussion. During that time several hoax's that the authors of that writing had been caught up in came to light, none of their own making. Their research at a time when there was no internet was certainly very difficult, that could only be realized by actually reading the book.

During the run of the forum "Arcadia" it too was caught up in a hoax perpetrated by Hammott/ Wilkinson, which was eventually caught by members of the forum itself. Lincoln received no facts from Hammott for the book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" which was written many years before anyone ever heard of Hammott or Wilkinson. Ben Hammott/ Bill Wilkinson had allegedly discovered the remains of Mary Magdalene in a cave near Rennes le Chateau and created a very believable hoax in doing so. He also had earlier created a hoax involving the Loch Ness Monster.

You should get your facts straight before discrediting anyone including Addison, Haag, Read or Rahn. And, if anything the authors of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" brought to light one of the greatest mysteries of our time, the Holy Blood Holy Grail.

As this discussion could turn into a whole subject on its own I will from now on only defer any answers or questions on this particular post, only to this post #453 of this thread "The Knights Templar connection to Oak Island Challenge"!

Cheers Loki

 

[ECS]

While we are getting facts straight and in accordance to your post#453 decree, how did your "respected Templar historians" become "credited" and what are these credentials and from what organization?
Book jacket blurbs does not constitute being "credited".
Lincoln did receive "facts" from Hammott/Wilkinson, not for HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL, but for later works.
The conclusions of Addison, Haag, Read and others are NOT based on hard fact, but on their speculative maybe could be fictional patchwork of force fitted information that create alternative historical events to fit their pet theory narrative which cleverly written for the sole purpose of selling books, not for historical accuracy- and that is the reason they are NOT ACCREDITED by legitimate universities and other academic organizations of higher learning.
PS: What is your current opinion on Andrew Gough's conclusions on the subjects addressed?

 

[lokiblossom]

While we are getting facts straight and in accordance to your post#453 decree, how did your "respected Templar historians" become "credited" and what are these credentials and from what organization?
Book jacket blurbs does not constitute being "credited".
Lincoln did receive "facts" from Hammott/Wilkinson, not for HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL, but for later works.
The conclusions of Addison, Haag, Read and others are NOT based on hard fact, but on their speculative maybe could be fictional patchwork of force fitted information that create alternative historical events to fit their pet theory narrative which cleverly written for the sole purpose of selling books, not for historical accuracy- and that is the reason they are NOT ACCREDITED by legitimate universities and other academic organizations of higher learning.
PS: What is your current opinion on Andrew Gough's conclusions on the subjects addressed?

Please refer to my post #453 this thread! See how that works! And I did ask you a question there, will you please answer it?

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

If you are referring to your question concerning Addison, Haag, and Read, I gave an answer.
Now Quid Pro Quo:
You keep claiming these are "credited Templar historians" who, what, and where did this "crediting" beyond the book jacket cover?

 

[lokiblossom]

If you are referring to your question concerning Addison, Haag, and Read, I gave an answer.
Now Quid Pro Quo:
You keep claiming these are "credited Templar historians" who, what, and where did this "crediting" beyond the book jacket cover?

You do realize that these authors are basically on your side in that they do not support any so-called alternative theory's?

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Reckon you will answer that question concerning your claim of their "crediting".
Then again, this reluctance you display in avoiding to answer does provide an answer.

 

[lokiblossom]

Reckon you will answer that question concerning your claim of their "crediting".
Then again, this reluctance you display in avoiding to answer does provide an answer.

You seem stuck on the word "credited", which would simply mean credited with that particular work. So, call it a mistake, remove the word and tell me what either of these well respected authors wrote that you do not agree with!

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

You finally realized there is a difference between an academic accredited historian and a books author who is credited with creating that work- the first must provide solid documentation in support of the claims presented, the latter can use actual facts to support pure speculation.
PS: Dan Brown is another "well respected author", but not a "credited" historian.
'nuff said.