My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia

[garyo1954]

No, please see post #7 page 1 of this thread! If you happen to read the whole thread you will see that this is all connected to Oak Island and Nova Scotia.
Cheers, Loki

Thank you for pointing that out. Admittedly, I skipped all the historical blurps as they show no connection to Oak Island. Its commendable and exhaustive research but without showing how and why (or why and how you believe) it is tied to Oak Island it remains unclear to the general readers.

To the "ignorant" reader, those who don't have access to this background; it is has no meaning. No matter how well written it is, without bringing it all together it remains nothing but history blurps that may or may not have some connection to each other and/or Oak Island.

Most great theories fail due to missing pieces (the clues necessary to solve the mystery). Like the 90' stone, the tombstone, etc. These are items much less fragile than parchments or paintings. And of all the people who had access, one person found what he believes is a clue in a parchment or painting that could have well have been lost, purged, or burnt. Is it logical to hide clues in plain sight if the clues get obliterated? Or if the clues are not readily available to those you want to pass the clues too?

It seems self-defeating. In a modern vernacular it's like having 40 tons of kryptonite and no Superman to use it on.

Although I can appreciate your exhaustive research, unless you can show a fundamental tie to Oak Island, it leaves the reader baffled as to why any of it was necessary, and how you came about putting these pieces together?

Can you explain those to us?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

Thank you for pointing that out. Admittedly, I skipped all the historical blurps as they show no connection to Oak Island. Its commendable and exhaustive research but without showing how and why (or why and how you believe) it is tied to Oak Island it remains unclear to the general readers.

To the "ignorant" reader, those who don't have access to this background; it is has no meaning. No matter how well written it is, without bringing it all together it remains nothing but history blurps that may or may not have some connection to each other and/or Oak Island.

Most great theories fail due to missing pieces (the clues necessary to solve the mystery). Like the 90' stone, the tombstone, etc. These are items much less fragile than parchments or paintings. And of all the people who had access, one person found what he believes is a clue in a parchment or painting that could have well have been lost, purged, or burnt. Is it logical to hide clues in plain sight if the clues get obliterated? Or if the clues are not readily available to those you want to pass the clues too?

It seems self-defeating. In a modern vernacular it's like having 40 tons of kryptonite and no Superman to use it on.

Although I can appreciate your exhaustive research, unless you can show a fundamental tie to Oak Island, it leaves the reader baffled as to why any of it was necessary, and how you came about putting these pieces together?

Can you explain those to us?

You are quite right, I have only taken the Templar treasures to Acadia or Vinland and not fully to Nova Scotia or Oak Island. Although I have shown that the Shugborough Code does indicate Oak Island. Actually my premises have a small Templar fleet landing in the vicinity of Oak Island in 1308, Within the next year they had built a small fortress at New Ross (Charing Cross as it was also called). Here they kept whatever treasures they had left France and Scotland with plus the Sangreal, known to us as the Holy Grail. In about the 16th century, as French Catholic fisherman began to show up on the shores of Acadia, some of the descendants of these knights left New Ross and as much as possible erased evidence of their presence, taking the Grail and a few other objects to a site near Annapolis Basin where they lie today. Some of these descendants had already assimilated into the First Nations and some probably left for whatever adventure they could find.
The old stone cross pointed to a trail alongside the Gold River that led to Charing Cross. The coconut fibre from the Eastern Mediterranean dated to the 13th century was carried in their holds as packing and on board ship as coir (rope). The drilled stones were used to anchor vessels, some small some large.
Thats basically it, and open for discussion.
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

Also, nobody has been able to explain why the obvious errors are in the text, except to create the anagram.
Cheers, Loki

How do you feel about a few of the errors in the script of E.Tisseyre. Excursion of 25 June 1905, Elie Tisseyre | Rennes-le-Chateau Research and Resource I found this article, figured the English translation from Tisseyre to be a bit off. Can you find the two oddities in it?

 

[lokiblossom]

How do you feel about a few of the errors in the script of E.Tisseyre.

Depends on how you feel about the statement in your post from Gerard Jean in charge of archives at SESA. "a couple of months after the excursion one of its members [SESA]... returned to Rennes le Chateau and collected the stone".
I have a copy of the original bulletin in French sent to me by SESA, if the excursion did not take place than SESA and Tisseyre would also have to be part of the conspiracy. I don't think that is possible. Also the dating and the bulletin numbers are correct. I have read the site you posted several years ago and have dismissed most of the oddities mentioned. As for errors, I have just sent out an article to be published with which I was quite careful on accuracy, but now have found a couple of errors I have to address.

Here's what I find interesting, we have an article cataloged by an established historical society but de Raaf claims some of the statements in the article are inaccurate, such as being able to see Couiza from the Magdalene Tower, or the route described in 1905 didn't exist, or the Magdalene Tower didn't have a staircase yet, ect. How does he know this and where are his sources? The Tower was under construction but was it documented somewhere that the staircase was built at a certain time? I know that at least some of Couiza can be seen from the Tower because I asked somebody who was there. As for the route, I can't find out the date a road was built by a local farm here in Michigan.

Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

Depends on how you feel about the statement in your post from Gerard Jean in charge of archives at SESA. "a couple of months after the excursion one of its members [SESA]... returned to Rennes le Chateau and collected the stone".

Cheers, Loki

Does Gerard Jean have proof of this? Is it me or is that a bit odd that someone comes a few months later and takes someones headstone away, I mean this wasn`t just an old engraved stone, it was a grave marker. Have you ever tried to date the original postcard from Labouche Freres, the drawing from Tisseyre of the Roche Tremblantes?

 

[lokiblossom]

Does Gerard Jean have proof of this? Is it me or is that a bit odd that someone comes a few months later and takes someones headstone away, I mean this wasn`t just an old engraved stone, it was a grave marker. Have you ever tried to date the original postcard from Labouche Freres, the drawing from Tisseyre of the Roche Tremblantes?

Yeah, I always thought so too, but my point was that for some reason that was included in a website that was attempting to rebuttal the authenticity of the Tombstone.
No, I have not, but the time period of the Labouche's business seems to work out. I think I may dig into that a little.
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

Well, if SESA would be wrong and the Tisseyre article would be a complete fake, it would make sense to make up a story to cover up the whole deal. They do have a professional reputation to uphold, and surely wouldn`t want to botch that up getting involved with the myths related to Rennes.

As for the Labouche cards, dating that series would give the credibility of the excursion a higher chance of actually happening. My main reason for questioning the authenticity of the article is simple, of all the interesting items Sauniere had installed around there, Visigothic pillar, the Knights stone, Asmodeus...etc etc. It`s suspicious they focused on a broken tombstone, they even mention how the knights slab should have been indoors, how beautiful the Visigothic pillar was, but they choose to draw and focus on a broken tombstone, that 60 years later just happens to be a key to this puzzle.

 

[lokiblossom]

Well, if SESA would be wrong and the Tisseyre article would be a complete fake, it would make sense to make up a story to cover up the whole deal. They do have a professional reputation to uphold, and surely wouldn`t want to botch that up getting involved with the myths related to Rennes.

As for the Labouche cards, dating that series would give the credibility of the excursion a higher chance of actually happening. My main reason for questioning the authenticity of the article is simple, of all the interesting items Sauniere had installed around there, Visigothic pillar, the Knights stone, Asmodeus...etc etc. It`s suspicious they focused on a broken tombstone, they even mention how the knights slab should have been indoors, how beautiful the Visigothic pillar was, but they choose to draw and focus on a broken tombstone, that 60 years later just happens to be a key to this puzzle.

Whether the excursion happened or not, Tisseyre handed an article describing the Tombstone to SESA in 1906. This is a fact, as SESA has sent me a properly cataloged copy of the article dated 1906. This is many years before the so-called hoax of the 1960's, and actually prior to the birth of any of the alleged hoaxers. For de Cherisey to have used the text from the Tombstone as described by Tisseyre he would have had to have found a copy of the report, not difficult of course, and used it for his anagram. But this does not explain the obvious errors inserted into the text to help create the anagram, nor what Tisseyre's motive would be for creating this drawing in the first place or even why he would have installed the errors.
The only possible explanation in this case would be that Tisseyre was in on the Shepherdess Parchment, perhaps with Sauniere or as some believe, along with the neighboring priest and friend of Sauniere's, Henri Boudet.
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

Whether the excursion happened or not, Tisseyre handed an article describing the Tombstone to SESA in 1906. This is a fact, as SESA has sent me a properly cataloged copy of the article dated 1906. This is many years before the so-called hoax of the 1960's, and actually prior to the birth of any of the alleged hoaxers. For de Cherisey to have used the text from the Tombstone as described by Tisseyre he would have had to have found a copy of the report, not difficult of course, and used it for his anagram.

Agreed, this makes perfect sense, if you prefer logic over mystery. If you look over all of the POS, or Cherisey`s workings, the majority of them show he has spent the time to research his musings, usually using readily available historical documents, but of course altering them to fit his motives.

But this does not explain the obvious errors inserted into the text to help create the anagram, nor what Tisseyre's motive would be for creating this drawing in the first place or even why he would have installed the errors.

I have no idea why the original stone had errors, my only guess would be an illiterate engraver, or it kind of looks as is the engraver tried to keep the text as symmetrical as possible before it started to grow toward the bottom. Tisseyre`s motives for this are another mystery, maybe no motive at all. I guess we will never truly know this one. I do believe Tisseyre inserted the missing letters in small text because he wanted to simply correct the spelling, but still let the viewer realize the engraver messed up. Like proof reading a paper so to speak.La Tombe de Vals, Philippe Marlin

The only possible explanation in this case would be that Tisseyre was in on the Shepherdess Parchment, perhaps with Sauniere or as some believe, along with the neighboring priest and friend of Sauniere's, Henri Boudet.

Or, Tisseyre wanted to correct the spelling without altering the true inscription. Cherisey could have easily found the article as you mentioned before, noticed the inserted letters, and simply created the anagram. Further using it to create the Shepherdess parchment. I`m not sure why this so hard to believe, as I said before this is his style, using old documents but altering the outcomes to fit his motives. The guy was clever indeed.

 

[lokiblossom]

Agreed, this makes perfect sense, if you prefer logic over mystery. If you look over all of the POS, or Cherisey`s workings, the majority of them show he has spent the time to research his musings, usually using readily available historical documents, but of course altering them to fit his motives.


I have no idea why the original stone had errors, my only guess would be an illiterate engraver, or it kind of looks as is the engraver tried to keep the text as symmetrical as possible before it started to grow toward the bottom. Tisseyre`s motives for this are another mystery, maybe no motive at all. I guess we will never truly know this one. I do believe Tisseyre inserted the missing letters in small text because he wanted to simply correct the spelling, but still let the viewer realize the engraver messed up. Like proof reading a paper so to speak.La Tombe de Vals, Philippe Marlin

Or, Tisseyre wanted to correct the spelling without altering the true inscription. Cherisey could have easily found the article as you mentioned before, noticed the inserted letters, and simply created the anagram. Further using it to create the Shepherdess parchment. I`m not sure why this so hard to believe, as I said before this is his style, using old documents but altering the outcomes to fit his motives. The guy was clever indeed.

To be sure, I was not saying that Tisseyre invented the stone, only that it was a possibility. I think it interesting that although you don't think the stone ever existed you think the errors could be the result of an illiterate stone engraver. At least you did not premise Tisseyre to be illiterate as you also premise he may have fixed the spelling, lol. If he did correct the spelling, why not the date, as carved it reads 1681 instead of the proper 1781. Also there is an O in the middle which does not exist in the system of Roman Numerals.
The mistakes on the steele are many and could not be accidental, at least in my opinion. For one thing the Abbe Antoine Bigou who would have been the one to order the stone (if there was one) would certainly have checked it over. The motive of whomever is responsible, in my opinion is simple, to create the message of the Shepherdess Parchment.
This from the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail; "Sauniere could not possibly have avoided contact with Cathar thought and traditions". They said this because of the location of Rennes le Chateau, deep in the Languedoc which was the center of the Cathar religion in the 13th century. The German officer and author Otto Rahn was convinced the Cathars held the secret to the Holy Grail, if not the object itself. There is a mystery that was deep in the Languedoc at one time, and there are reasons some don't want this mystery solved.
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

I think it interesting that although you don't think the stone ever existed you think the errors could be the result of an illiterate stone engraver.

I don't believe I said the stone didn't exist, I said I don`t think there was a hidden code. You have some good questions there, which I don't have answers for. Would you be so kind to point out your opinions on Plantard and Cherisey, how do they fit in and why them?

 

[sdcfia]

<cut>
The next clue is the letters "D" and "M" at each end of the coded message below the Shugborough relief. What needs to be taken into perspective here is the navigation backgrounds of both of the Anson brothers and at the same time understand that seconds of a degree of latitude or longitude were hardly used in 18th century navigation. These facts would lead one to the conclusion that the "D" stands for "degrees" while the "M" stands for "minutes" or minutes of a degree. A known degree and minutes of latitude along with a known degree and minutes of longitude would be a certain position on the Earth or the "coordinates" of a location. Without the use of "seconds" it would take 4 numbers to supply these coordinates. It is also important to note that prior to the latter half of the 18th century longitude, the position East or West could not be accurately determined while at sea. Only with the use of an accurate timepiece would this become possible. There can be no doubt that the solution to the Shugborough code is the coordinates of a location, but how to read it and where does it take us? Next chance I get I'll post my own answer IMHO.

Cheers, Loki

A couple points to think about. If one was using a celestial coordinate system based upon use of the the ecliptic poles and plane (not the planet's rotational poles and equator), and had a properly accurate instrument with which to make the observations, it's entirely feasible that longitude may have been readily obtainable for perhaps millennia prior to the development of an accurate chronometer. Crichton Miller has demonstrated this, albeit in a not-well-written (IMO) book, in which he further speculates that this methodology and possibly a trove of ancient maps may have been key discoveries by the Knights Templar in Jerusalem. This implies that a "lost" method of celestial navigation may have been unused for many centuries, but became available to insiders, ie the Knights Templar, ca 12th century CE.

Regarding coded coordinates, even though Greenwich Prime Meridian may have been in standard use in the 18th century, there's no reason that another prime meridian (there have been many), or an arbitrary prime meridian, could not have been used to describe terrestrial locations. Latitude is a fixed entity, yes, but longitude is not and in reality is merely a time shift from any agreed upon reference meridian on the globe. Using a prime meridian other than Greenwich might serve as an extra layer of security for the coded coordinates.

 

[lokiblossom]

Regarding coded coordinates, even though Greenwich Prime Meridian may have been in standard use in the 18th century, there's no reason that another prime meridian (there have been many), or an arbitrary prime meridian, could not have been used to describe terrestrial locations. Latitude is a fixed entity, yes, but longitude is not and in reality is merely a time shift from any agreed upon reference meridian on the globe. Using a prime meridian other than Greenwich might serve as an extra layer of security for the coded coordinates.

There have been many, but in the mid 18th it was Greenwich!
An extra security layer was not needed, this was meant to be found. Did you see my explanation of the letter, number code?
Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

I don't believe I said the stone didn't exist, I said I don`t think there was a hidden code. You have some good questions there, which I don't have answers for. Would you be so kind to point out your opinions on Plantard and Cherisey, how do they fit in and why them?

I didn't know them, but I would say in my opinion they were pawns!
Cheers, Loki

 

[sdcfia]

There have been many, but in the mid 18th it was Greenwich!
An extra security layer was not needed, this was meant to be found. Did you see my explanation of the letter, number code?
Cheers, Loki

Regarding the Greenwich Prime Meridian's "official" designation in 1751, its use in the maritime world grew slowly until the early 19th century, following development of Harrison's chronometer. It certainly wasn't widely used when the Shugborough monument was created. When we consider the Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries, it would be my gut feeling that the Paris Meridian would be much more likely to be referenced in matters related to terrestrial coordinates, axis mundi patterns, sacred geometry, etc.

Yes, I did read your Post #39. There have been many solutions offered for that inscription. Yours - number substitutions, then their manipulation - is similar to anagrams in that there are many possibilities. I agree that your method is a simple one (often the best), and using your rules, one can identify those numbers as lat/longs. The one aspect that interested me was your arbitrary change from right-to-left for determining latitude degrees and minutes, then left-to-right for longitude. Without prior knowledge of the Oak Island location/legends, I wonder if your solution would have emerged, since that act of playing with the numbers was the only way you could make the coordinates designate a position reasonably close to Oak Island. But, that's OK - see below.

You've reverse-engineered Oak Island's location to tie it back to the Shugsborough inscription. Having seen a number of evidence arrays pertaining to alleged "KGC" (popular label) caches in the American southwest (including one that I blew twenty years on myself), I confirm that one must manipulate the data using a variety of options (as you have) in order to make any sense of the clues that have been found - or, at least to verify beyond doubt that there was a methodology used. Your hypothesis is be commended because you have been thinking outside the box.

Remember though, as with the KGC mysteries (and I believe these folks are on the same team as those who created the Oak Island mysteries), red herrings cunningly designed to delay, confuse and discourage the curious have been created requiring massive amounts of work. I often wonder if Oak island isn't an example of this - a circular loop of sorts. One so convincing as to assume that "it's obviously a final destination." If so, it's distracted searchers for more than two hundred years. If I were a betting man, I would not expect anything of great value to ever be found on/under Oak Island. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll continue watching the efforts there.

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes, I did read your Post #39. There have been many solutions offered for that inscription. Yours - number substitutions, then their manipulation - is similar to anagrams in that there are many possibilities. I agree that your method is a simple one (often the best), and using your rules, one can identify those numbers as lat/longs. The one aspect that interested me was your arbitrary change from right-to-left for determining latitude degrees and minutes, then left-to-right for longitude. Without prior knowledge of the Oak Island location/legends, I wonder if your solution would have emerged, since that act of playing with the numbers was the only way you could make the coordinates designate a position reasonably close to Oak Island.

I never meant it to point to Oak Island, only Nova Scotia, but the latitude actually did pass close to the island. My arbitrary change from right to left as you say, had another reason, minutes of a degree are not written with a number larger than 59'. The longitude 43 degrees 63 minutes west as written is incorrect no matter where it is. I failed to mention this because I was kinda rushed that day.
My premises do not include anything at Oak Island now. Only that the Templar treasures (also not important IMHO) and a few religious artifacts (including the Sangrail) garnered from Solomons Temple in the early 12th century passed through Oak Island on their way to Charing Cross, up the Gold River some 18 miles from Oak Island. Following other clues to Acadia from Poussin, and Teniers, I thought it interesting that the Shugborough Code narrowed it to Nova Scotia as "Acadia" is a mighty big area!

I do think you would find that the British in 1750 could care less about the Paris meridian.
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

I didn't know them, but I would say in my opinion they were pawns!
Cheers, Loki

Pawns..could you clarify why you think this, and by whom they were pawned by.

 

[lokiblossom]

Pawns..could you clarify why you think this, and by whom they were pawned by.

I don't know, its only an opinion. I do know that investigating Pierre Plantard or Philippe de Cherisey only leads to a black hole. If you have read Chaumeil's "Priory of Sion" or de Cherisey's alleged Stone and Paper you will know what I mean.
One statement by de Cherisey in an interview with Chaumeil though is very telling:
Chaumeil-Did Father Sauniere genuinely discover some parchments in his church in 1891?
de Cherisey-Yes, he did. But these documents are in London; they have been kept in the private safe of a bank [in Charing Cross] for the last twenty years! They are genealogies
Cheers, Loki

 

[The HOUND]

Are you sure it`s a safe bet to believe Cherisey, or do his words just fit well with your theories.

 

[sdcfia]

I don't know, its only an opinion. I do know that investigating Pierre Plantard or Philippe de Cherisey only leads to a black hole. If you have read Chaumeil's "Priory of Sion" or de Cherisey's alleged Stone and Paper you will know what I mean.
One statement by de Cherisey in an interview with Chaumeil though is very telling:
Chaumeil-Did Father Sauniere genuinely discover some parchments in his church in 1891?
de Cherisey-Yes, he did. But these documents are in London; they have been kept in the private safe of a bank [in Charing Cross] for the last twenty years! They are genealogies
Cheers, Loki

This entire "secret hidden bloodline" dog and pony show may be no more than a well-planned-out, pre-damage control scheme designed as insurance to salvage some degree of the Church of Rome's moral authority - just in case an even more damaging and authentic secret threatened it. "Yes, our guy was married after all, ha ha. Oops, we should have mentioned that. Oh well, it doesn't really change our role, does it? We're still top dogs, heh, heh." Etc. If true, this would essentially move the Priory of Sion players and possibly Saunier into the huckster/co-conspirator column, but would not adequately explain the Knights Templars' leverage, IMO. The COR notwithstanding, it seems to me that the big question is what the KT really found in Jerusalem - knowledge of some sort, IMO.

As far as artifacts are concerned, the Ark of the Covenant is (was) probably authentic. IMO, the "Holy Grail" (chalice) never existed.