New treasure theory?

[Al D]

Say "What"...The York Rite has only 10 degrees and you "Must Be" a Master Mason to join.Are you a Master Mason?FREEMASONS AND THE YORK RITE SYSTEMThe York Rite in Freemasonry actually refers to three cooperative groups that confer a total of ten degrees in the United States. There are four Royal Arch degrees, three Cryptic Mason degrees, and three Chivalric orders. You must already be a Master Mason before you can join the York Rite.

Yes, I am a Master Mason, a Royal Arch Mason, a Cryptic Mason and a Knight Templar.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[gjb]

The Story of The Oak Island Money Pit begins in the 1760’s

It was conceived by a number of Britains’ high ranking Naval Officers, who were Masonic Degree Members of the Freemasons and belonging to the Premier Grand Lodge of England.

At Oak Island, the treasure was buried based on the Masonic “Royal Arch” (Enoch’s Temple) doctrine, consisting of nine arches going down nine levels by way of the main shaft (The Money Pit) which was then dug further down to the bedrock.

It’s well worthwhile noting that the Grand Lodge of England in the 1760s did not work the Royal Arch, and prohibited it in all its Lodges with dire consequences if this edict was ignored. Nevertheless, the Antients Grand Lodge did work it (Zerubbabel) inseparable from the third degree. The Grand Lodge of All England (the Grand Lodge of York) which was reconstituted in 1761 is also known to have worked the degree at that time, also Knights Templar in 1779 (it seems unlikely that Knights were made prior to 1770, but I haven’t discovered when the Antients first worked the degree).

I doubt that anyone could say for sure which legend predominated in the Royal Arch in 1762 and how developed the ritual had become at that time.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this from your extensive research into the history and ritual of Freemasonry!

 

[Al D]

It’s well worthwhile noting that the Grand Lodge of England in the 1760s did not work the Royal Arch, and prohibited it in all its Lodges with dire consequences if this edict was ignored. Nevertheless, the Antients Grand Lodge did work it (Zerubbabel) inseparable from the third degree. The Grand Lodge of All England (the Grand Lodge of York) which was reconstituted in 1761 is also known to have worked the degree at that time, also Knights Templar in 1779 (it seems unlikely that Knights were made prior to 1770, but I haven’t discovered when the Antients first worked the degree).

I doubt that anyone could say for sure which legend predominated in the Royal Arch in 1762 and how developed the ritual had become at that time.

Read up on Thomas Dunkerley and William Preston for info on the Royal Arch.
Thomas S Webb for info on the history of the York Rite and the significant influence Templarism had on its development.

 

[gjb]

Read up on Thomas Dunkerley and William Preston for info on the Royal Arch.
Thomas S Webb for info on the history of the York Rite and the significant influence Templarism had on its development.

Thanks for the pointers. Dunkerley and Preston I'm familiar with, but I'll certainly look up Webb - I take it that's the Monitor.

 

[gjb]

I enjoy reading speculation done well, because I can usually appreciate the depth of research and the structure of the argument and, of course, the firm declaration that the thesis being presented is not proven. That is, it is not annoyingly presented as being fact.

Better still if the hypothesis presented can be tested, so one might learn something from the exercise - preferably positive. For instance, I don’t go along with Petter Amundsen’s main thesis, but I feel that his Tree of Life theory, as he imagined it tested, was out of the ordinary in its results. I’d thought to take a look at the designated spot to see if a stone was present, but I never contemplated digging.

Finding more stones at other points made the test more interesting, and the thesis a shade more believable (though not compelling) and it’s a shame that, at the time, Petter couldn’t check out every likely location on the supposed Tree structure.

So much Oak Island theory falls short in the testing, either documentary (historical) or exploratory (location). To suggest that the originator may have been a Freemason is one thing, to declare that the project was Masonic is quite another. I imagine that testing either would come up short, but I reckon the former might be worth pursuing in preference to the latter.

I also see no reason to specify the who, the when or the what without incontrovertible.evidence. Find the deposit, if there is one, and then work this out. I believe that if there’s a deposit then the path to it may well lie on the island, and that the ground markers and map instructions could be all the documentation we'll ever have (and, hopefully, need). However, I don’t deny that it’s possible a knowledge of Freemasonry might help in the interpretation.

For example, the quest for the deposit may start in the east and proceed west, thence returning to the east. I don’t look for a Masonic conspiracy, simply because I currently find this unnecessary.

 

[Robot]

To Solve... The Mystery Of Oak Island...More Speculation and Less Cross Examination!

I enjoy reading speculation done well, because I can usually appreciate the depth of research and the structure of the argument and, of course, the firm declaration that the thesis being presented is not proven. That is, it is not annoyingly presented as being fact.

Better still if the hypothesis presented can be tested, so one might learn something from the exercise - preferably positive. For instance, I don’t go along with Petter Amundsen’s main thesis, but I feel that his Tree of Life theory, as he imagined it tested, was out of the ordinary in its results. I’d thought to take a look at the designated spot to see if a stone was present, but I never contemplated digging.

Finding more stones at other points made the test more interesting, and the thesis a shade more believable (though not compelling) and it’s a shame that, at the time, Petter couldn’t check out every likely location on the supposed Tree structure.

So much Oak Island theory falls short in the testing, either documentary (historical) or exploratory (location). To suggest that the originator may have been a Freemason is one thing, to declare that the project was Masonic is quite another. I imagine that testing either would come up short, but I reckon the former might be worth pursuing in preference to the latter.

I also see no reason to specify the who, the when or the what without incontrovertible.evidence. Find the deposit, if there is one, and then work this out. I believe that if there’s a deposit then the path to it may well lie on the island, and that the ground markers and map instructions could be all the documentation we'll ever have (and, hopefully, need). However, I don’t deny that it’s possible a knowledge of Freemasonry might help in the interpretation.

For example, the quest for the deposit may start in the east and proceed west, thence returning to the east. I don’t look for a Masonic conspiracy, simply because I currently find this unnecessary.

 

[gjb]

To Solve... The Mystery Of Oak Island...More Speculation and Less Cross Examination!

Boy, if that's your approach to truth and justice (your prime directive) then I can't believe anyone here would want you on the jury were they on trial!

This is so extreme a view that you've given me hope that you don't, in fact, believe any of this and you're simply playing us.

 

[Robot]

Gjb...Are You Really... Here To Solve This Mystery?...Or To Promote Your ...Books?

Boy, if that's your approach to truth and justice (your prime directive) then I can't believe anyone here would want you on the jury were they on trial!

This is so extreme a view that you've given me hope that you don't, in fact, believe any of this and you're simply playing us.

 

[gjb]

What earthly relevance does this have to Oak Island and a connection to Freemasonry? I did expect better from you.

You and others here appear not to want to move forward with any form of inquiry, only to indulge yourselves in inconsequential interchange and bombastic claims of omniscience and infallibility that’s really nothing more than idle speculation based on inadequate research and gross conjecture.

By all means theorise, because that’s virtually all we can do, but make sure the foundation is factual, the argument is adequately reasoned and the resulting hypothesis is preferably testable, indicating how this is to be achieved. If this can’t be done then don’t claim that the hypothesis (theory) has to be correct.

Once more, I've had enough, but do continue to enjoy the mockery you're making of the forum. I assume that's why you're here.

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes, I am a Master Mason, a Royal Arch Mason, a Cryptic Mason and a Knight Templar.

Wow, and you were going to pee your pants when I said I was a sailor and pilot!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

Wow, and you were going to pee your pants when I said I was a sailor and pilot!

Cheers, Loki

Haha, it only took you two weeks to come up with that?, who isn’t?
sorry, I am not impressed.

 

[Al D]

Wow, and you were going to pee your pants when I said I was a sailor and pilot!

Cheers, Loki

Just to put your Awesome accomplishments into perspective, shall we take a poll to see how many members here are pilots or sailors?

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Alan, I am Both, commercial multi engine sea. Was trained by the USAF in 51.but not the sea rating.Origionally was quathelified for DC-3. I back Loki, mi buddy. Er, what are we discussing

 

[Al D]

Alan, I am Both, commercial multi engine sea. Was trained by the USAF in 51.but not the sea rating.Origionally was quathelified for DC-3. I back Loki, mi buddy.

That is OK with me, but this is not about personal accomplishment, it is really about credibility, most members here have done the same, I sailed through a damn hurricane in the sea of Japan in 1977 on a tin can barely over 400 feet long, no big deal. It does not make me an expert on Templars, Masonry or even life for that matter

 

[ECS]

Just to put your Awesome accomplishments into perspective, shall we take a poll to see how many members here are pilots or sailors?

Those "Awesome accomplishments" are perfect for qualifying as a cadet for the new US SPACE FORCE.
Applications are now being taken.

 

[lokiblossom]

Alan, I am Both, commercial multi engine sea. Was trained by the USAF in 51.but not the sea rating.Origionally was quathelified for DC-3. I back Loki, mi buddy. Er, what are we discussing

DC-3, C-47, Dakota, great airplane Real!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Nah EC, AM 95 now. Would love it though. Alan, don't miss your experience, which bulkhead did you eat off ?

 

[lokiblossom]

That is OK with me, but this is not about personal accomplishment, it is really about credibility, most members here have done the same, I sailed through a damn hurricane in the sea of Japan in 1977 on a tin can barely over 400 feet long, no big deal. It does not make me an expert on Templars, Masonry or even life for that matter

Wow, I almost peed my pants when I read that, LOL!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes, I am a Master Mason, a Royal Arch Mason, a Cryptic Mason and a Knight Templar.

a Knight Templar too? And I had thought they had been disbanded by order of the Pope, my bad!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

That is OK with me, but this is not about personal accomplishment, it is really about credibility, most members here have done the same, I sailed through a damn hurricane in the sea of Japan in 1977 on a tin can barely over 400 feet long, no big deal. It does not make me an expert on Templars, Masonry or even life for that matter

How can you not be an expert on the Templars if you claim you are one?

Cheers, Loki