The Knights Templar connection to Oak Island (if it's possible)

[ECS]

Is that what the experts have told you or is that what you believe? Either way you are dead wrong.

Saying I am "dead wrong" and presenting actual documented evidence to that effect, are not the same thing.
...and you have yet provided any valid ;y verified documented proof beyond the on proven claims of these pulp self published quasi historians and their half baked pseudo revisionist fiction.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Well it must be true if it goes against accepted theories that have held up to repeated scrutiny.

Remember all the leading theories were at one time new and speculative. The difference is that they were able to hold up to peer review or modified due to new findings or observations. That is the strength of the scientific method. Pseudoscience is easy and available to anyone. Just deny the current best theory and toss in UFOs or Templars. Helps to have wacky hair, too.

 

[franklin]

Saying I am "dead wrong" and presenting actual documented evidence to that effect, are not the same thing.
...and you have yet provided any valid ;y verified documented proof beyond the on proven claims of these pulp self published quasi historians and their half baked pseudo revisionist fiction.

ECS you are never satisfied with any documentation or proof. Now admit. Even if you had the documented proof before you. Here are your words, "But we are not talking about that." That is what you say everytime someone gives you any proof or documentation. We do not have to document or verify anything this is a discussion forum. If you want everything like in a history book go read you a history book. This is a forum to discuss possibilities, research and other methods of trying to solve anything about a treasure or a mystery. We want a lock case, throw away the key information. You may as well go somewhere where your educated professionals dwell maybe you can get them to give you some of your documented proof of whatever you are looking for. I see nothing you can add or say to help others than your pseudo crap this and pseudo crap that. Have you a wonderful day.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"Proof" I would accept. As they say: "show me the money".

Proof that something does not exist is not the same as saying something did but does not now exist. Requires a different group of evidence or traces.

But then what I might accept is not the same as others here. Don't generalize us as all equally skeptical. There are degrees of skepticism or outright disbelief.

 

[ECS]

ECS you are never satisfied with any documentation or proof. Now admit.
Even if you had the documented proof before you. Here are your words, "But we are not talking about that."
That is what you say everytime someone gives you any proof or documentation.
We do not have to document or verify anything this is a discussion forum...

On what post(s) have I used the phrase "But we are not talking about that"?
So far Franklin, you have posts statements as fact without providing any proof or documentation beyond the unproven claims quasi history pulp writers, which others beside me have question the validity of these highly suspect claims, many of which have been proven false.
Your response when these statements and claims posted as fact are questioned and proven not to be with actual documented evidence is always the predictable insults directed at one who posed the question and provided real documented proof.

Does "We do not have to document or verify anything this is discussion forum" mean that gives one carte blanche to post false, fictional, and speculative information as fact?
Anything goes, whether true or not?

The possibilities and other methods you mentioned are not true research, and posting it as fact solves nothing at all but more piled on fiction that gets passed on as "true", like Zichmni being Sinclair, and Sinclair being a Templar who led a Templar cavalry charge at Bannockburn.
Real professional historian have proven these as fabricated fiction and manufactured myth.
Maybe you need to follow your own advice, and read an actual real history book instead of these self published pulp fantasies for profit.

 

[franklin]

You can take the information any way you like. You usually do anyway.

 

[Robert_Dazzler]

I actually have a deep hole in my backyard that i constantly have my garden hose running into, and this is the reason the money pit is always flooding. Its a diversion and the real treasure is in my basement. I could prove it to you but you couldnt handle it. But i swear its true and because i say it, it makes it real.

 

[ECS]

... Sir Henry Sinclair's ship the Saint Katherine was blown upon Oak Island during a hurricane in 1398.
They buried the treasure, burned the ship after three weeks of exhaustive work of trying to get it back to the water in Mahone Bay. Back then they called the Oak Island---------Dog Island.
By the way the "swamp" was formed by them trying to get the Saint Katherine back to water.
They also lost one other ship in the waters near there. Do not know if it had treasure or not. I believe it went down up near Halifax Harbour.

What treasure did Sinclair carry to Nova Scotia and what purpose did it serve to bury there?
If the only source of this information is from Diana Jean Muir's "translated" Sinclair Journals, it is highly questionable for being factual.

 

[lokiblossom]

From the above posted Richard C Neiman letter, dated Sept 27,1993:
"The sample is modern...in the "grey area" of approximately 300 years old and may not be scientifically reliable"
300 years old from Neiman's dated letter would be 1693, NOT the 1300's, and Noted, the dating process "MAY NOT be scientifically reliable", which is Neiman's speculation based on the tests.
Once again, this is NOT PROOF, but an attempt to fit questionable facts fabricating a pseudo history in support of a pet theory.
In no way is this evidence that Sir Henry Sinclair sailed a ship named SAINT KATHERINE that "was blown upon Oak Island during a hurricane in 1398".

Did you even read the letter posted by Franklin? The 300 year sentence was referring to a wood sample submitted. The coconut fibre was reliably tested to be 770 years old from the present (which is according to other Beta letters from and to Richard Nieman 1950). Beta gives the sample a date of 1180 with an +-error of 60 years. According to other letters on this particular test there were two different identifications of this sample (one by the Smithsonian and one by Harvard) as "coconut fibre"!
A later test of a different batch of coconut fiber was dated in 1993 by Beta with a 95% confirmation of between 1168 and 1371!
In all of these tests seawater contamination is mentioned and taken into account.

note; There are a total of 56 pages in the letters of the collection from Oak island.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Does this mean that you, Loki, believe that Sir Henry Sinclair sailed the ship St Katherine that was loaded with treasure to bury in Nova Scotia years after your alleged Templars did the exact same thing, and that the swamp was formed during attempts at freeing her from being beached?
*NOTE* The coconut coir found on Oak Island is NOT proof that it was deposited there by the Templars, Sinclair, Capt Kidd, or any other group of people.

 

[lokiblossom]

Does this mean that you, Loki, believe that Sir Henry Sinclair sailed the ship St Katherine that was loaded with treasure to bury in Nova Scotia years after your alleged Templars did the exact same thing, and that the swamp was formed during attempts at freeing her from being beached?
*NOTE* The coconut coir found on Oak Island is NOT proof that it was deposited there by the Templars, Sinclair, Capt Kidd, or any other group of people.

I just think that before you use information posted to belittle somebody, you ought to read and understand it!

And yes, even if it is only my opinion,it is evidence of a Knights Templar presence on Oak Island.

Cheers, loki

 

[ECS]

I just think that before you use information posted to belittle somebody, you ought to read and understand it!
And yes, even if it is only my opinion,it is evidence of a Knights Templar presence on Oak Island.

How is asking one to elaborate on information they have posted as fact and requesting the source of that information belittling them?
Unless. of course. it is not based on documented fact, but rather on personal opinion based on conjecture, supposition, speculation derived from innuendo, myth, legend, and tales of lore which become obvious when one reads and understands that there is no hard factual source for this information.

 

[lokiblossom]

From the above posted Richard C Neiman letter, dated Sept 27,1993:
"The sample is modern...in the "grey area" of approximately 300 years old and may not be scientifically reliable"
300 years old from Neiman's dated letter would be 1693, NOT the 1300's, and Noted, the dating process "MAY NOT be scientifically reliable", which is Neiman's speculation based on the tests.
Once again, this is NOT PROOF, but an attempt to fit questionable facts fabricating a pseudo history in support of a pet theory.
In no way is this evidence that Sir Henry Sinclair sailed a ship named SAINT KATHERINE that "was blown upon Oak Island during a hurricane in 1398".

because you completely misquoted this Richard C. Neiman letter dated Sept 1993, that had been posted by Franklin. The actual date of the coconut fibre was 1180 with a margin of plus or minus 60 years as reported in my post 49.

Cheers, loki

 

[ECS]

From the Richard C Neiman letter dated September 17,1993, the entire second paragraph concerning a submitted wood sample:
"The sample is modern, but impossible to say without any degree of certainty, how modern. Dr. Tamera of Beta Analytic informs me that any date as young as 300 years before present (BP) as measured before 1950 AD is highly suspect and should not be presented as a single date. Such a young date should only be stated in probabilities with enough caveats which would render a definitive statement impossible. Therefore, it would seem that our previous Carbon-14 dates are also suspect since they are in the "grey area" or approximately 300 years old and may not be scientifically reliable".

*NOTE* The Neiman quote which Loki states was completely misquoted, was only edited for directness of the point being made by Richard C Neiman, which is quite apparent in the above non edited paragraph from that letter.
The coconut coir sample is given a 95% accuracy date of being 770 years old, but it is not mentioned where, when, or by whom it was collected.

With that addressed, neither of these samples and their Carbon-14 dating prove that either Templars of Sinclair ever step foot on Oak Island- that pure speculation.

 

[lokiblossom]

From the Richard C Neiman letter dated September 17,1993, the entire second paragraph concerning a submitted wood sample:
"The sample is modern, but impossible to say without any degree of certainty, how modern. Dr. Tamera of Beta Analytic informs me that any date as young as 300 years before present (BP) as measured before 1950 AD is highly suspect and should not be presented as a single date. Such a young date should only be stated in probabilities with enough caveats which would render a definitive statement impossible. Therefore, it would seem that our previous Carbon-14 dates are also suspect since they are in the "grey area" or approximately 300 years old and may not be scientifically reliable".

*NOTE* The Neiman quote which Loki states was completely misquoted, was only edited for directness of the point being made by Richard C Neiman, which is quite apparent in the above non edited paragraph from that letter.
The coconut coir sample is given a 95% accuracy date of being 770 years old, but it is not mentioned where, when, or by whom it was collected.

With that addressed, neither of these samples and their Carbon-14 dating prove that either Templars of Sinclair ever step foot on Oak Island- that pure speculation.

You still misquote, why? What I wrote about the 95% accuracy test with a dating from 1168-1371, was from a later 1993 letter, the 1990 letter posted by Franklin gives the coconut fibre a dating of 1180 with a plus or minus factor of 60 years. The only thing you are quoting is the dating of a wood sample that was included in the 1990 test, completely ignoring the coconut fibre test in the 2nd paragraph.
The WOOD sample was modern, not the coconut fibre sample!

As I mentioned there are 56 pages of these letters in my collection, we are talking about two of them.

And, again in my opinion it is indeed evidence of a Templar presence on Oak Island!

Cheers, Loki

 

[franklin]

From the Richard C Neiman letter dated September 17,1993, the entire second paragraph concerning a submitted wood sample:
"The sample is modern, but impossible to say without any degree of certainty, how modern. Dr. Tamera of Beta Analytic informs me that any date as young as 300 years before present (BP) as measured before 1950 AD is highly suspect and should not be presented as a single date. Such a young date should only be stated in probabilities with enough caveats which would render a definitive statement impossible. Therefore, it would seem that our previous Carbon-14 dates are also suspect since they are in the "grey area" or approximately 300 years old and may not be scientifically reliable".

*NOTE* The Neiman quote which Loki states was completely misquoted, was only edited for directness of the point being made by Richard C Neiman, which is quite apparent in the above non edited paragraph from that letter.
The coconut coir sample is given a 95% accuracy date of being 770 years old, but it is not mentioned where, when, or by whom it was collected.

With that addressed, neither of these samples and their Carbon-14 dating prove that either Templars of Sinclair ever step foot on Oak Island- that pure speculation.

ECS, You keep changing and cutting the letter and changing the meaning of everything in the letter. Read this paragraph again. I know you can never admit you are wrong. But I will say this you are wrong as it is written in Black and White as to who it was that turned in the sample of coconut fiber and where the fiber came from. Also how it was tested and the year that was determined. So please do not keep taking away from the evidence and then say the evidence never said this. The evidence says this and the letter proves it. ECS, That gives us a date of 1185 AD to 1260 AD for the coconut fiber.

 

[ECS]

... ECS, That gives us a date of 1185 AD to 1260 AD for the coconut fiber.

How does that prove that it was brought to Nova Scotia by either the Templars or Henry Sinclair?
That is what Loki and You avoid discussing, because there is no direct connection to either beyond wishful speculation.

 

[ECS]

... I know you can never admit you are wrong...

It seems you and I and several others have that in common.

 

[LouMiller]

CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG None of us are digging on the island so no need to be like Nolan - Blankenship.

 

[franklin]

How does that prove that it was brought to Nova Scotia by either the Templars or Henry Sinclair?
That is what Loki and You avoid discussing, because there is no direct connection to either beyond wishful speculation.

I see you have shifted into reverse and then back into another gear going down a different road. Such is your way.