The Knights Templar connection to Oak Island Challenge

[ECS]

You clearly do not understand the religion of the Cathars, which I will not discuss in this format as it really doesn't matter what they believed. Suffice it to say that many Christians don't accept organized religion.

You have mentioned Otto Rahn many times in attempting to place the Grail in Templar hands to carry to Oak Island.
Your response to Rahn's quote I posted in POST#893 indicated that you been making claims for Rahn's conclusions concerning the Cathars and the Grail which are more personal speculation than actual fact.

The religious beliefs have nothing to do with proving that Templars voyaged to Nova Scotia and buried a treasure at Oak Island.
You also continue to mention de Villers setting sail from La Rochelle in ships, and not the 18 galleys from Jean de Chalons testimony derived from torture with the lame claim that galley was a generic term in the 1300's.
If, as you stated, the "Templars possessed typical sailing vessels", Chalons would know the difference between vessels.
We have had this discussion before concerning the vessels in use in 1307, and there is no collaborating proof that the Templars possessed a ship capable of crossing the Atlantic. Only wishful speculation.
Where is the outside collaboration evidence that de Villers set sail from La Rochelle, or what the was the "whole treasure" of de Pairaud that Hugues de Chalons fled with, which is the ONLY mention of treasure being taken somewhere by a Templar?
How does de Chalons mentioning de Villers give more credence to 18 galleys setting out to sea from La Rochelle?
It doesn't.
Your proof is "much more that speculation", as British historian Richard Barber stated about HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL which appears to be your main source of these questionable "facts", "the whole argument is an ingenuous series of suppositions"

Coconut coir does not prove that the Templars voyaged to Oak Island to bury a treasure nor that they had ships capable of that voyage, or that they possessed a treasure "Grail" they received from the Cathars, or that the Cathars had actually possessed the Grail.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

You know by now how the game here is played . . .
Start with a fact or true statement and then spin it all out of sensibility...
Now just make up something about Oak Island using the same logic and you're all set.

No real evidence required, and the more random statements presented as "fact" by innuendo, supposition, and speculation, the better.

"There is a lot of history being published and people mistake this type of history for the real thing, but actually they aren't history, they are a kind of parody of history.
These kind of books do appeal to an enormous audience who believe them to be history"
- Robert McCrum, Editor of THE OBSERVER newspaper, commenting on HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL and other books of the pseudo history genre.

 

[franklin]

What exactly are you going to do when you find out all of the history written is all wrong.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Rewrite it. History gets rewritten all the time.

 

[ECS]

What exactly are you going to do when you find out all of the history written is all wrong.

So far, Franklin, that hasn't happened, and I seriously doubt that these quasi historian purveyors of pulp pseudo alternative history will provide any catalyst of change with their jump to conclusion innuendo speculative supposition haphazard research that lacks any outside documented collaboration that is the prerequisite of establish historical fact from fiction.

You do understand the difference of documenting with hard outside collaboration from imagined non-supporting collaborating facts, don't you?

 

[Al D]

No real evidence required, and the more random statements presented as "fact" by innuendo, supposition, and speculation, the better.

"There is a lot of history being published and people mistake this type of history for the real thing, but actually they aren't history, they are a kind of parody of history.
These kind of books do appeal to an enormous audience who believe them to be history"
- Robert McCrum, Editor of THE OBSERVER newspaper, commenting on HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL and other books of the pseudo history genre.

Even Lincoln admitted that he had been duped into believing the story about the Priory of Scion, his opinion now is that the very premise of HBHG is flawed

 

[ECS]

With the very premise of HBHG being flawed, that renders ALL the following conclusions as fruit from the poisoned tree.

 

[Al D]

With the very premise of HBHG being flawed, that renders ALL the following conclusions as fruit from the poisoned tree.

Very true, without the support of the “Priory of Scion” the very idea of a bloodline of Christ is absurd

 

[ECS]

... The Vault was 4 megaliths below the surface of the ground on Mason's Island in the Potomac River. It is Teddy Roosevelt's Island today. Can anyone imagine that was the first Treasury Vault of the United States before we even became the United Thirteen States of America.
The Vault is now empty but it is still there. It was about 100 paces from the Mansion of George Mason. It took 12 whale boats off of the ships to transport the treasure to the Vault.
An inventory of the treasure was made by John Weems, Jr. as he was the leader of the 58 men that recovered the Knight's Templar Treasures from four Islands in Mahone Bay.
All was recovered except one of the two that had been buried after the Saint Katherine captained by Sir Henry Sinclair was blown half way across "Dog Island" by a strong wave from a Hurricane. The oak trees that later give Oak Island it's infamous name was in the Saint Katherine as ballast. The ship hit a stump on it's voyage onto the Island and became lodged between two trees. The acorns went everywhere being washed all over the Island and into the area that later became known as the "swamp"
They tried for weeks digging a channel to get the ship back into the bay but all attempts failed. The channel they dug later became the "swamp" The Knight's Templar were left to guard the two treasures after it had been buried. The ships planking was used to make a shelter for the three Knight's Templar and the rest was burned.
ECS if you really like history you should read Diana Muir's books. They are not made up and they definitely are not fiction.
There was 7 ships on the first expedition of Sir Henry Sinclaire to search out some missing Knight's that had been missing since 1353. These Knight's were left behind when Henry Sinclair's family came over with his father on a fishing expedition. The Voyage in 1395 was also to find locations to bury the Knight's Templar Treasure's and to make contact with the Mic-Maque Indians as well as the Seneca up around Lake Ontario.
The Expedition of 1398, Sir Henry Sinclair brought over 8 ships with a complement of 9 fishing vessels with supplies, water and gifts for the natives. As well as they were to take back a load of fish. The treasures were buried on four Islands that had already been picked out by the 1395 Expedition.
There were at that time already Mosque and towns of the Templar's, West Port, Maine was one as 23 Knight's Templar had been left there. There was also a like amount at New Ross where they had built a fortification some call it a "castle" The treasure there was buried in a room or chamber at the bottom of the well. That treasure was also recovered and carried to Mason's Island...
I love history like this as it is NEW and it is verifiable.
Historians need to make contact with Diana and start their screening for facts because they will not be disappointed.
Most of the information in these books can not be released until Diana and others has the opportunity to check out treasure locations... Several have already been verified such as markers, and carved stones or trail markers.
There are a total of 8 that lead to the Ark of the Covenant of God. Three has been found and one of those was next to the last marker to the Ark and the last one was not pursued for several reasons.
POST # 757, Page 51, Aug 19,019

So far, that have been any credited lettered academic historians that have accepted Muir's Sinclair Journals as legitimate historical documents, because she stated that she destroyed what she found that she said were copies copied from an original source, so there is NO verification of these journals actual existence, and will all of these pseudo histories, there is NO outside of these journals collaboration.
The account above is a good story presented by Diana Jean Muir, but NOT history changing as there is no outside proof that it happened beyond the pages of Muir's books.

 

[Al D]

Muir must be laughing all the way to the bank

 

[lokiblossom]

You have mentioned Otto Rahn many times in attempting to place the Grail in Templar hands to carry to Oak Island.
Your response to Rahn's quote I posted in POST#893 indicated that you been making claims for Rahn's conclusions concerning the Cathars and the Grail which are more personal speculation than actual fact.

The religious beliefs have nothing to do with proving that Templars voyaged to Nova Scotia and buried a treasure at Oak Island.
You also continue to mention de Villers setting sail from La Rochelle in ships, and not the 18 galleys from Jean de Chalons testimony derived from torture with the lame claim that galley was a generic term in the 1300's.
If, as you stated, the "Templars possessed typical sailing vessels", Chalons would know the difference between vessels.
We have had this discussion before concerning the vessels in use in 1307, and there is no collaborating proof that the Templars possessed a ship capable of crossing the Atlantic. Only wishful speculation.
Where is the outside collaboration evidence that de Villers set sail from La Rochelle, or what the was the "whole treasure" of de Pairaud that Hugues de Chalons fled with, which is the ONLY mention of treasure being taken somewhere by a Templar?
How does de Chalons mentioning de Villers give more credence to 18 galleys setting out to sea from La Rochelle?
It doesn't.
Your proof is "much more that speculation", as British historian Richard Barber stated about HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL which appears to be your main source of these questionable "facts", "the whole argument is an ingenuous series of suppositions"

Coconut coir does not prove that the Templars voyaged to Oak Island to bury a treasure nor that they had ships capable of that voyage, or that they possessed a treasure "Grail" they received from the Cathars, or that the Cathars had actually possessed the Grail.

The religious views of the Cathars have everything to do with their being in possession of the Grail though!

Would the Templar's have had troop carrying Galley's based at the Atlantic port of La Rochelle to carry on trade up and down the Atlantic Coast to as faraway as Ireland, Scotland, England and Calais?

Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's knew the difference between a Galley and any other type of vessel?

Its more evidence that de Chalon's did not lie, because along with the actual disappearance of all the vessels de Villers also disappeared becoming the most wanted man in France!

Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's lied under oath?

No it doesn't and I never said it does, the coconut fibre, dated as it was, is "evidence" of a Templar presence on Oak Island at some time before 1492, in my own humble opinion!

One more question. If de Chalon's did lie under oath would he have also lied about the type of vessels that left port, or what part of his testimony was lie and what wasn't?


Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Do you have any actual historical evidence beyond innuendo and supposition that support your above questions?
I'm surprised that you haven't combined the story of Sir Henry Sinclair and the Templars with de Villers and 18 galleys leaving La Rochelle.
Let's give that a go:
De Villers band of escaping Templars arrived in Scotland, joined with the Sinclair brothers, who led their cavalry charge at Bannockburn, then crewed Sir Henry Sinclair's voyage to Nova Scotia to bury their accumulated treasure, including an object that belong to the Cathars, on Oak Island. The Templars stayed behind to guard the treasure sites while Sinclair sailed back to Scotland, returning years later with fishing vessels, supplies, and gifts for the friendly indigenous people.
During that time, the Templars built a castle at New Ross, buried more treasure, carved stones, and established towns at other locations.
That's the ticket, give or take a fabrication or two, or, ten, or all.

 

[sasquash]

De Villers band of escaping Templars arrived in Scotland, joined with the Sinclair brothers, who led their cavalry charge at Bannockburn, then crewed Sir Henry Sinclair's voyage to Nova Scotia to bury their accumulated treasure, including an object that belong to the Cathars, on Oak Island. The Templars stayed behind to guard the treasure sites while Sinclair sailed back to Scotland, returning years later with fishing vessels, supplies, and gifts for the friendly indigenous people.
During that time, the Templars built a castle at New Ross, buried more treasure, carved stones, and established towns at other locations.

Wow, in Quebec we say virer son capot d'bord, in France changer son fusil d'épaule, I wish someone give me the Acadian version !

You have a great theory ECS.

 

[lokiblossom]

Do you have any actual historical evidence beyond innuendo and supposition that support your above questions?
I'm surprised that you haven't combined the story of Sir Henry Sinclair and the Templars with de Villers and 18 galleys leaving La Rochelle.
Let's give that a go:
De Villers band of escaping Templars arrived in Scotland, joined with the Sinclair brothers, who led their cavalry charge at Bannockburn, then crewed Sir Henry Sinclair's voyage to Nova Scotia to bury their accumulated treasure, including an object that belong to the Cathars, on Oak Island. The Templars stayed behind to guard the treasure sites while Sinclair sailed back to Scotland, returning years later with fishing vessels, supplies, and gifts for the friendly indigenous people.
During that time, the Templars built a castle at New Ross, buried more treasure, carved stones, and established towns at other locations.
That's the ticket, give or take a fabrication or two, or, ten, or all.

Historical evidence that supports my questions? That's a new one, the questions were for you in answer to all the questions you have ask me over the years.
I really would like to know your answers.

Henry Sinclair? When did I mention him? and like I said, as far as Bannockburn is concerned, I don't have a dog in the fight.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The religious views of the Cathars have everything to do with their being in possession of the Grail though!

Would the Templar's have had troop carrying Galley's based at the Atlantic port of La Rochelle to carry on trade up and down the Atlantic Coast to as faraway as Ireland, Scotland, England and Calais?

Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's knew the difference between a Galley and any other type of vessel?

Its more evidence that de Chalon's did not lie, because along with the actual disappearance of all the vessels de Villers also disappeared becoming the most wanted man in France!

Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's lied under oath?

No it doesn't and I never said it does, the coconut fibre, dated as it was, is "evidence" of a Templar presence on Oak Island at some time before 1492, in my own humble opinion!

One more question. If de Chalon's did lie under oath would he have also lied about the type of vessels that left port, or what part of his testimony was lie and what wasn't?


Cheers, Loki

Here you go, one more chance. These are all honest questions which I don't believe deserve a fictitious response.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

1.The religious views of the Cathars have everything to do with their being in possession of the Grail though!
2.Would the Templar's have had troop carrying Galley's based at the Atlantic port of La Rochelle to carry on trade up and down the Atlantic Coast to as faraway as Ireland, Scotland, England and Calais?
3.Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's knew the difference between a Galley and any other type of vessel?
4.Its more evidence that de Chalon's did not lie, because along with the actual disappearance of all the vessels de Villers also disappeared becoming the most wanted man in France!
5.Do you have any actual historical evidence that de Chalon's lied under oath?
6.No it doesn't and I never said it does, the coconut fibre, dated as it was, is "evidence" of a Templar presence on Oak Island at some time before 1492, in my own humble opinion!
7.One more question. If de Chalon's did lie under oath would he have also lied about the type of vessels that left port, or what part of his testimony was lie and what wasn't?

1. No evidence that the Cathars possessed the Grail beyond legend, and myth, rendering their religious not relevant to the Templars in Oak Island discussion.
2. No evidence that the Templars had troop carrying galleys at La Rochelle not needed for British Isles and Calais trade.
3. No historical evidence of de Chalon knowing the difference, but you assume that he didn't know the difference between a trade or troop galley from a ship.
4. Where is the evidence outside of de Chalon's that de Villers and 18 galleys actually disappeared from the port of La Rochelle?
5. de Chalon's testimony was forced under torture, deemed as the most unreliable form of interrogation, for the victim will say and confess to anything to end his suffering.
6. If the coconut coir dating from Oak Island is correct, it is NOT evidence of Templar activity on Oak Island. Pure Speculation.
7. As noted in answer #5, a tortured testimony or confession is NOT reliable.
The questions you keep avoiding, Loki;
1. Outside of de Chalon's torture forced testimony as noted in the Vatican Report, is there any contemporary mention of de Villers and the 18 galleys escaping from the port of La Rochelle?
2. Is there any evidence outside of de Chalon's confession that Hugues de Chalon fled with the whole treasure of Brother Hugues de Pairaud, what was this treasure, and where did he flee.
All of these questions have been addressed on my POST# 901, as well as the posed above to you.
Quid pro quo, Loki, and please do not respond with more of a HBHG fictional response.

 

[ECS]

...
Henry Sinclair? When did I mention him? and like I said, as far as Bannockburn is concerned, I don't have a dog in the fight.

Neither did the Templars.

 

[lokiblossom]

Neither did the Templars.

Like I wrote, Bannockburn is of no concern to me!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

1. No evidence that the Cathars possessed the Grail beyond legend, and myth, rendering their religious not relevant to the Templars in Oak Island discussion.
2. No evidence that the Templars had troop carrying galleys at La Rochelle not needed for British Isles and Calais trade.
3. No historical evidence of de Chalon knowing the difference, but you assume that he didn't know the difference between a trade or troop galley from a ship.
4. Where is the evidence outside of de Chalon's that de Villers and 18 galleys actually disappeared from the port of La Rochelle?
5. de Chalon's testimony was forced under torture, deemed as the most unreliable form of interrogation, for the victim will say and confess to anything to end his suffering.
6. If the coconut coir dating from Oak Island is correct, it is NOT evidence of Templar activity on Oak Island. Pure Speculation.
7. As noted in answer #5, a tortured testimony or confession is NOT reliable.
The questions you keep avoiding, Loki;
1. Outside of de Chalon's torture forced testimony as noted in the Vatican Report, is there any contemporary mention of de Villers and the 18 galleys escaping from the port of La Rochelle?
2. Is there any evidence outside of de Chalon's confession that Hugues de Chalon fled with the whole treasure of Brother Hugues de Pairaud, what was this treasure, and where did he flee.
All of these questions have been addressed on my POST# 901, as well as the posed above to you.
Quid pro quo, Loki, and please do not respond with more of a HBHG fictional response.

So, are you claiming that all of the vessels used by the Order in La Rochelle were galleys?

And again, why would de Chalons lie? What would such a lie gain him? You base the whole argument against 18 vessels leaving the Port of La Rochelle on the hope that he was telling a lie to his inquisitors.

Sure there is contemporary mention, in fact it is common knowledge that the Templars had vessels in that port for trade up and down the Atlantic Coast. It is also common knowledge that a large contingent of Templars had recently arrived from Cyprus, at least one source claims with 10 ships, making the number 18 certainly a possibility. And one other point is that the vessels for the orders trading business would not have been galleys. All evidence, of course, that de Chalon's did not lie.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

So, are you claiming that all of the vessels used by the Order in La Rochelle were galleys?

And again, why would de Chalons lie? What would such a lie gain him? You base the whole argument against 18 vessels leaving the Port of La Rochelle on the hope that he was telling a lie to his inquisitors.

Sure there is contemporary mention, in fact it is common knowledge that the Templars had vessels in that port for trade up and down the Atlantic Coast. It is also common knowledge that a large contingent of Templars had recently arrived from Cyprus, at least one source claims with 10 ships, making the number 18 certainly a possibility. And one other point is that the vessels for the orders trading business would not have been galleys. All evidence, of course, that de Chalon's did not lie.

Why don't you cite that "contemporary source".
It is common knowledge that"common knowledge" is not the same as verified hard factual documented evidence.