The Knights Templar connection to Oak Island Challenge

[lokiblossom]

What rules am I changing, Loki?
Confession obtained from torture are NOT considered as reliable, and de Chalons testimony reference to de Villers setting out to sea in 18 galleys is something "he heard it said" hearsay, not de Chalons actual witnessing this happening.
For this testimony to be employed as fact to build a premise that de Villers and the La Rochelle Templars sailed to Nova Scotia, with or not with Henry Sinclair, depending on who is writing this story, outside collaboration from a contemporary medieval source is required before de Chalons testimony can be accepted as fact.

*NOTE* Contemporary medieval collaborating source is NOT a quote from HBHG by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, but actual verified documented from the 14th century.

The rules you are changing is that you indicated that testimony under torture could be a lie and in de Chalons case probably was. After I asked why would he lie, how could that help him? And added that it was a fact that vessels were in port and others had more than likely just arrived from Cyprus with a large contingent of Knights and their retinue along with gold and silver from the Cyprus Headquarters. Also a fact that Gerard de Villers who had been mentioned in the testimony as heading to that port with 50 horses, indicating that he would be with those vessels if they left port, actually did leave with or without the vessels (whichever one chooses to believe), as did the vessels, with or without him (again whichever one chooses to believe). And another fact is that none of the above were ever seen again. At that point you wrote that you had never indicated that de Chalons testimony was a lie. Btw, none of this is from HBHG.

So, with much of this being fact, what part of de Chalons testimony was either a lie or simply not correct? about all you can come up with would be the number of vessels I would think? But I believe that with several ships in port and the arrival of probably 10 more, 18 is not an unreasonable number. One other point I should make is that I only premise 3 or 4 going to Nova Scotia, so I really don't need 18 anyhow.

From now on in deference to your claim that Jean de Chalons did not lie I will only mention his testimony as truthful as far as he knew, correct? One more point is that in his testimony de Chalons had met de Villers leading the 50 horses, it was after that that he had heard de Villers had left port with 18 Galleys.

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

The rules you are changing is that you indicated that testimony under torture could be a lie and in de Chalons case probably was. After I asked why would he lie, how could that help him? And added that it was a fact that vessels were in port and others had more than likely just arrived from Cyprus with a large contingent of Knights and their retinue along with gold and silver from the Cyprus Headquarters. Also a fact that Gerard de Villers who had been mentioned in the testimony as heading to that port with 50 horses...

So, with much of this being fact, what part of de Chalons testimony was either a lie or simply not correct? about all you can come up with would be the number of vessels I would think? But I believe that with several ships in port and the arrival of probably 10 more, 18 is not an unreasonable number. One other point I should make is that I only premise 3 or 4 going to Nova Scotia, so I really don't need 18 anyhow.

From now on in deference to your claim that Jean de Chalons did not lie I will only mention his testimony as truthful as far as he knew, correct? One more point is that in his testimony de Chalons had met de Villers leading the 50 horses, it was after that that he had heard de Villers had left port with 18 Galleys.

Let us examine Jean de Chalons testimony.
"The leaders of the order fled, and he himself met brother de Villers leading 50 horses. and he heard it said that he set out to sea with eighteen galleys and that brother Hugues de Chalons fled with the whole treasure of brother Hugues de Pairaud".
Vatican Archive Registra Avenionensia 48 f450l June 1308
Where does de Chalons state that de Villers was leading 50 horses to the port? He doesn't, that is your assumption.
de Chalons stated that "he heard it said" that de Villers set out to sea with 18 galleys.
As with the 50 horse being taken to port, he doesn't have direct knowledge that 18 galleys were at the port of La Rochelle, only that he was told this by another, this other person is not named.
Continuing with the hearsay, de Chalons also mentions that he heard "that brother Hugues de Chalons fled with the whole treasure of brother Hugues de Pairaud".
Claiming as fact that vessels were in port and others more than likely just arrived from Cyprus" with Knights, gold, and silver is just another assumption of circumstantial information added to the de Chalons' hearsay that is fabricated into proof that the Templars escaped with treasure that they then took to Nova Scotia.
No contemporary medieval documents outside of de Chalons' testimony exist that can confirm or collaborate de Villers and the 18 galleys setting out to sea from La Rochelle.

 

[lokiblossom]

Let us examine Jean de Chalons testimony.
"The leaders of the order fled, and he himself met brother de Villers leading 50 horses. and he heard it said that he set out to sea with eighteen galleys and that brother Hugues de Chalons fled with the whole treasure of brother Hugues de Pairaud".
Vatican Archive Registra Avenionensia 48 f450l June 1308
Where does de Chalons state that de Villers was leading 50 horses to the port? He doesn't, that is your assumption.
de Chalons stated that "he heard it said" that de Villers set out to sea with 18 galleys.
As with the 50 horse being taken to port, he doesn't have direct knowledge that 18 galleys were at the port of La Rochelle, only that he was told this by another, this other person is not named.
Continuing with the hearsay, de Chalons also mentions that he heard "that brother Hugues de Chalons fled with the whole treasure of brother Hugues de Pairaud".
Claiming as fact that vessels were in port and others more than likely just arrived from Cyprus" with Knights, gold, and silver is just another assumption of circumstantial information added to the de Chalons' hearsay that is fabricated into proof that the Templars escaped with treasure that they then took to Nova Scotia.
No contemporary medieval documents outside of de Chalons' testimony exist that can confirm or collaborate de Villers and the 18 galleys setting out to sea from La Rochelle.

Its not "more than likely others arrived from Cyprus witha large amount of treasure and 60 knights" That is a "historical fact"! Busy tonight, catch you tomorrow, but at least you now accept the testimony from Jean de Chalons.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

... that it was a fact that vessels were in port and others had more than likely just arrived from Cyprus with a large contingent of Knights and their retinue along with gold and silver from the Cyprus Headquarters...

If it was a "fact that vessels were in port", what is the source of this fact?
Everybody knows, common knowledge, as you usual reply.
"More than likely others arrived…is not stated as a "historical fact", more like an assumed statement.
As for Jean de Chalons' statement, he stated what he stated, what do you imply by claiming that I accept his testimony?
Are you attempting to misrepresent what I have posted, again?

 

[DaveVanP]

No witches were "burned" in North America. 45 people were killed for witchcraft in North America (including Canada) between 1620 and 1690: 41 were hanged, 3 died in prison, 1 died during "confession" (torture).

 

[lokiblossom]

If it was a "fact that vessels were in port", what is the source of this fact?
Everybody knows, common knowledge, as you usual reply.
"More than likely others arrived…is not stated as a "historical fact", more like an assumed statement.
As for Jean de Chalons' statement, he stated what he stated, what do you imply by claiming that I accept his testimony?
Are you attempting to misrepresent what I have posted, again?

The Templars operated a lucrative wine trade up and down the Atlantic Coast from a port they had basically owned since 1139, La Rochelle. The Templars had permit to operate commercial shipping out of Britian. This creates a common knowledge.

This quote from Evelyn Lord's book "The Knights Templar in Britain" "Their [the Knights Templars] main fleet was in La Rochelle, and it was this fleet, berthed away from the theatre of war, that was part of the maritime network linking the order in the British Isles, with the continent"

Ms. Lord was the director of local and regional history at Cambridge University, and has written many books on several related subjects!

I assumed that the way you addressed de Chalons testimony in your last post you had agreed that he was telling the truth as far as he knew!

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

While we are discussing "common knowledge" the Templar Mediterranean fleet used their port on the south of France, Collioure, and would then ship by land trade goods to their Atlantic port of La Rochelle.
This was done to avoid the risky passage through the Straights of Gibraltar, rarely did their Mediterranean fleet make this journey to La Rochelle.
A Templar ship leaving Cyprus would put in at the French port of Collioure, and then travel by land to La Rochelle on a well used road.
If de Chalons' encountered de Villers leading 50 horses, it would have been on this road between Collioure and La Rochelle.

PS: You assume too much and arrive at faulty highly questionable conclusions.

 

[lokiblossom]

While we are discussing "common knowledge" the Templar Mediterranean fleet used their port on the south of France, Collioure, and would then ship by land trade goods to their Atlantic port of La Rochelle.
This was done to avoid the risky passage through the Straights of Gibraltar, rarely did their Mediterranean fleet make this journey to La Rochelle.
A Templar ship leaving Cyprus would put in at the French port of Collioure, and then travel by land to La Rochelle on a well used road.
If de Chalons' encountered de Villers leading 50 horses, it would have been on this road between Collioure and La Rochelle.

PS: You assume too much and arrive at faulty highly questionable conclusions.

Talk about assume! 500 miles overland or 100, and don't forget the Pope was in Poiters at the time. What is your source for this?

What about the vessels Ms. Lord is writing about, you not going to address that?

From "Art; In the age of exploration c, 1493 "Maritime traffic had taken a major step forward at the end of the thirteenth century when the ships plying the route had begun regularly to sail around the Iberian Peninsula"

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Did Evelyn Lord state that the Templars who departed from Cyprus arrived at La Rochelle, or is this another assumption of yours based on your constant mention of their "lucrative wine trade up and down the Atlantic Coast" or another random unrelated "fact".

 

[tinpan]

Hi The Knights Templar were tasked with the welfare and protection of pilgrims in Britain . This can be seen the structure known as The Temple Cornwall . Clearly nothing like the bazaar stories of mountains of treasures in North America . TP

 

[ECS]

Talk about assume! 500 miles overland or 100, and don't forget the Pope was in Poiters at the time. What is your source for this?
What about the vessels Ms. Lord is writing about, you not going to address that?
From "Art; In the age of exploration c, 1493 "Maritime traffic had taken a major step forward at the end of the thirteenth century when the ships plying the route had begun regularly to sail around the Iberian Peninsula"

The Pope being in Poiters at that time, the vessels Evelyn Lord wrote about, and the age of exploration quote have no direct bearing or connection to your statement "more than likely others arrived" ( Templar galleys/ships) at La Rochelle.
That is another example of nonrelated random facts forced fitted to prove one's pet premise when no actual contemporary documented proof exists beyond the tortured testimony of Jean de Chalons.
Remember, de Chalons had "heard" that de Villers had set to sea with 18 galleys, but had no direct knowledge of whether what he "heard" was true, AND it is not stated from whom he "heard" this.
Jean de Chalons direct knowledge in this statement was that he "met brother de Villers leading 50 horses", he does not say where he met de Villers, from where de Villers came or where he was going.
It is "assumed" from what de Chalon said he was told, that de Villers was going to La Rochelle to set out to sea, just as it is assumed that the Templars from Cyprus sailed to the port of La Rochelle and not to the more convenient port of Collioure.

 

[lokiblossom]

The Pope being in Poiters at that time, the vessels Evelyn Lord wrote about, and the age of exploration quote have no direct bearing or connection to your statement "more than likely others arrived" ( Templar galleys/ships) at La Rochelle.
That is another example of nonrelated random facts forced fitted to prove one's pet premise when no actual contemporary documented proof exists beyond the tortured testimony of Jean de Chalons.
Remember, de Chalons had "heard" that de Villers had set to sea with 18 galleys, but had no direct knowledge of whether what he "heard" was true, AND it is not stated from whom he "heard" this.
Jean de Chalons direct knowledge in this statement was that he "met brother de Villers leading 50 horses", he does not say where he met de Villers, from where de Villers came or where he was going.
It is "assumed" from what de Chalon said he was told, that de Villers was going to La Rochelle to set out to sea, just as it is assumed that the Templars from Cyprus sailed to the port of La Rochelle and not to the more convenient port of Collioure.

The quote "more that likely" is directly attributed to counter views of Templars using the ports of Marseilles and Collioure, which they did of course. In this particular case the Order was basically leaving Cyprus and knew of trouble brewing in France which is why their own port of La Rochelle would have been a favored destination from which to escape to anywhere in the Atlantic region if necessary ie, Scotland, Portugal, Ireland or ect. The "fact" that late 14th century vessels had evolved to the point that sailing around the Iberian Peninsula made that a more viable option is why I used the quote.

117 years earlier, In 1190, Richard I (the Lionheart) successfully sent his very large fleet around the Iberian Peninsula.

As for pirates, there were 60 knights on board these ships along with at least 60 squires and the Templars who operated the ships. I don't think a couple of vessels with marauding pirates would have been much of a problem.

Another point is that the Templar vessels carried cargos of several tons of gold, silver and other treasures plus at least 200 horses and their feed. In either the port of Marseilles or Collioure they didn't have the infrastructure to transport such a cargo any great distance, but La Rochelle a port they had full control of and from where they operated a lucrative trade with all the cities up and down the Atlantic Coast would have had the suitable equipment.

The Templars operated locally out of Collioure into the Languedoc region. To assume they would carry many tons of freight over terrible roads during the little ice age four to five hundred miles with little equipment, when they could (at the time) sail their vessels directly to a destination, remembering at the same time they may have needed those same vessels to escape France in a hurry, doesn't make much sense to me.

One more point to consider is in Evelyn Lords statement that indicates a suitable number of vessels already at La Rochelle to accomplish everything I premise even without the Cyprus Fleet.

Cheers, Loki

 

[petetherocker]

As for pirates, there were 60 knights on board these ships along with at least 60 squires and the Templars who operated the ships. I don't think a couple of vessels with marauding pirates would have been much of a problem.

Cheers, Loki

The oil tankers of today get attacked by pirates all the time....they're also heavily defended....

 

[ECS]

So far, Loki, you have assumed that these unrelated facts, of quoted enough times, prove your. premise.
To the unwary reader, they might, but to the discerning reader, they remain unrelated random facts that have no actual bearing in proving that de Villers or any other Templar set out to sea and sailed to Nova Scotia.
What you have presented as supporting fact is just a continuous mobius trip of speculation supposition of assumed connections that do not exist beyond pretzel logic.
Gerard de Sede, who along with Plantard created the false documents of the Priory of Sion claimed that de Villers and 40 Templar Knights fled to Switzerland, and did not set out to sea from La Rochelle.
The point being, with the total lack of contemporary medieval documentation of de Villers and 18 galleys setting out to sea that collaborates Jean de Chalons' testimony, in which the port of La Rochelle was NOT mentioned, it could have been Marseilles or Collioure, as with de Sede and others of the fringe history community, make it easy to juggle real facts to fabricate aversion that fits on personal pet theory.

 

[lokiblossom]

The oil tankers of today get attacked by pirates all the time....they're also heavily defended....

How does that equate to a couple of Moorish pirate ships against some 10 vessels with some 250 armed men. I guess if you put a modern pirate ship up against a couple of US destroyers!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

So far, Loki, you have assumed that these unrelated facts, of quoted enough times, prove your. premise.
To the unwary reader, they might, but to the discerning reader, they remain unrelated random facts that have no actual bearing in proving that de Villers or any other Templar set out to sea and sailed to Nova Scotia.
What you have presented as supporting fact is just a continuous mobius trip of speculation supposition of assumed connections that do not exist beyond pretzel logic.
Gerard de Sede, who along with Plantard created the false documents of the Priory of Sion claimed that de Villers and 40 Templar Knights fled to Switzerland, and did not set out to sea from La Rochelle.
The point being, with the total lack of contemporary medieval documentation of de Villers and 18 galleys setting out to sea that collaborates Jean de Chalons' testimony, in which the port of La Rochelle was NOT mentioned, it could have been Marseilles or Collioure, as with de Sede and others of the fringe history community, make it easy to juggle real facts to fabricate aversion that fits on personal pet theory.

Except to myself, I have not once claimed I have proven my premise. I have continually said that I am seeking someone to work with me at a site I have visited near Annapolis Basin to help prove my premises. After writing Nova Scotia Museums several times as well as a few other sites it was determined that I need an Archaeologist to get permits for that purpose, which is why on this and several other sites I have been providing evidence that supports my premises. I need to thank you and others for helping me keep this subject alive as well as the administrators of this forum.

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

Supposition and speculation are not considered evidence, not even circumstantial, which probably the reason why no one has joined your quest near the Annapolis Basin site. Maybe you should contact Scott Wolter or Diana Jean Muir, neither let facts get in their way.

 

[lokiblossom]

Supposition and speculation are not considered evidence, not even circumstantial, which probably the reason why no one has joined your quest near the Annapolis Basin site. Maybe you should contact Scott Wolter or Diana Jean Muir, neither let facts get in their way.

Maybe I will, sounds good! But thanks anyhow.


Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

The quote "more that likely" is directly attributed to counter views of Templars using the ports of Marseilles and Collioure, which they did of course. In this particular case the Order was basically leaving Cyprus and knew of trouble brewing in France which is why their own port of La Rochelle would have been a favored destination from which to escape to anywhere in the Atlantic region if necessary ie, Scotland, Portugal, Ireland or ect. The "fact" that late 14th century vessels had evolved to the point that sailing around the Iberian Peninsula made that a more viable option is why I used the quote.

117 years earlier, In 1190, Richard I (the Lionheart) successfully sent his very large fleet around the Iberian Peninsula.

As for pirates, there were 60 knights on board these ships along with at least 60 squires and the Templars who operated the ships. I don't think a couple of vessels with marauding pirates would have been much of a problem.

Another point is that the Templar vessels carried cargos of several tons of gold, silver and other treasures plus at least 200 horses and their feed. In either the port of Marseilles or Collioure they didn't have the infrastructure to transport such a cargo any great distance, but La Rochelle a port they had full control of and from where they operated a lucrative trade with all the cities up and down the Atlantic Coast would have had the suitable equipment.

The Templars operated locally out of Collioure into the Languedoc region. To assume they would carry many tons of freight over terrible roads during the little ice age four to five hundred miles with little equipment, when they could (at the time) sail their vessels directly to a destination, remembering at the same time they may have needed those same vessels to escape France in a hurry, doesn't make much sense to me.

One more point to consider is in Evelyn Lords statement that indicates a suitable number of vessels already at La Rochelle to accomplish everything I premise even without the Cyprus Fleet.

There is this of course. Funny that you don't "Reply With Quote" perhaps you don't like anyone to actually read what you are dissing?

Cheers, Loki

 

[ECS]

I didn't reply because it was another one of you speculative assumptions- not every Templar Mediterranean galley voyage carried several tons of gold, silver, and other treasures plus at least 200 horses and their feed, that is an exaggeration not worth a rational comment
You seem to forget the Templar banking activities of Medieval "travelers checks" deposit money in France, and that amount was available in the Holy Land, and loans made with property as collateral.
There was no need for the Templars to constantly transport gold, silver, and treasure the Mediterranean. That is another supposition.

Yes, there was a road between Collioure and La Rochelle that the Templars used to transport good back and forth in wagons and carts, they did have a stable of draft horses at both ports, but that is your assumption that it was "many tons of freight".
The Templars probably transported "many tons of freight" between the two ports, but NOT on a single run, but over the course on many during their active commercial trading years.