Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[halo71]

That show....You could watch the first season, then the last season. And not missed a thing! I quit wasting time a few years ago on it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

... You do know the Lady of the Lake was named for King Arthur's sister?

The Lady Of the Lake who gave King Arthur Excalibur, had no name.
In one version of the legend, she requested that Arthur to give her the head of knight, Balin le Savage, who then killed the Lady of the Lake because she murdered his mother. Nimue, who led Merlin away, then became the Lady of the Lake that received Excalibur after Arthur's death.
Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote that Arthur had one sister, Anna, who married King Lot of Orkney.
Sir Thomas Malory in Le Morte de Arthur, listed three half sisters, Anna/Morgause, Elaine, and the sorceress, Morgan le Fay.
I'm surprised that Diana Jean Muir hasn't included a mention of King Lot and Queen Anna/Morgause in her Sir Henry Sinclair creative saga and relate the legend of King Arthur to Oak Island.

 

[franklin]

I bet you do not know what the sword Excalibur was used for do you?

 

[ECS]

Have you ever seen King Arthur's Sword, Excalibur?
They claim to have found it stuck in rock in the Bosnian River. Trouble their Sword Excalibur is 2,000 years to young.
Excalibur was made in the 5th or 6th Century BC. King Arthur was born 491 AD and died near 578 AD.
That is how your archaeologist are always wrong...

Considering that King Arthur never existed outside of the legends, I seriously doubt that any professional archaeologist would stake his reputation by making such a claim.
Once again, a diversion hijack that has nothing to do with the Oak Island topic, unless. of course Sinclair or the Templars buried Excalibur at Oak Island with their other imagined treasure.

 

[ECS]

I bet you do not know what the sword Excalibur was used for do you?

I'm bettin' you don't either beyond what was written by Geoffrey and Malory, or in the many Grail romances.

 

[franklin]

Considering that King Arthur never existed outside of the legends, I seriously doubt that any professional archaeologist would stake his reputation by making such a claim.
Once again, a diversion hijack that has nothing to do with the Oak Island topic, unless. of course Sinclair or the Templars buried Excalibur at Oak Island with their other imagined treasure.

Not trying to hijack any thread only pointing out how your self proclaimed experts are always wrong. You are wrong also. As there were two King Arthurs. And they were real kings. Your experts just do not research or get out of the house away from their computers enough.

 

[ECS]

Not trying to hijack any thread only pointing out how your self proclaimed experts are always wrong. You are wrong also. As there were two King Arthurs. And they were real kings. Your experts just do not research or get out of the house away from their computers enough.

It should be stated that several persons from that 7th century period who fought the Saxon invasion have been mentioned as possible sources of the King Arthur legend, but there was never an actual King Arthur.
You always claim the professionals are "wrong" but never have you provided any hard evidence that proves your "right".
PS: I reckon you are NOT going to tell what the sword Excalibur was "used for". now are you?

 

[ARC]

The lady of the lakes had a sword ? ? ?

Not when I dated her.

 

[ECS]

I reckon she didn't tell you what Excalibur was "used for"!

 

[ARC]

I reckon she didn't you what Excalibur was "used for"!

I knew what you meant :P



Um... first off... I prefer my women swordless.

 

[franklin]

It should be stated that several persons from that 7th century period who fought the Saxon invasion have been mentioned as possible sources of the King Arthur legend, but there was never an actual King Arthur.
You always claim the professionals are "wrong" but never have you provided any hard evidence that proves your "right".
PS: I reckon you are NOT going to tell what the sword Excalibur was "used for". now are you?

Excalibur was used after a battle was won. It was used to execute prisoners, chopping off heads but mostly severing off their arms. They would gather the blood and pour it down the blade of Excalibur. In the lineage of King Arthur I in the 4th Century, there was King Arthur II in the 6th Century and there was another King Arthur III later. And by 760 AD there was Arthur IV. They were real Kings. The myths were made up in the 12th to 16th Centuries. Mostly because the academics could never find them. The legends also had a lot of truth in them. I know where King Arthur of Excalibur Fame is buried. He and his wife were not buried at Glastonbury as I once believed. As that was made up by monks to satisfy King Edward. Can't remember whether King Edward I, II or III most likely II. King Edward was buried at Glastonbury because of the monks made up lies.

Move this to another thread or start another thread and we can discuss this further. As you say I am hijacking this Oak Island thread. All though their treasures may be at Oak Island. As they mined silver, gold and copper in this continent a thousand years or more before the Knights Templars ventured over in 1179 AD.

 

[ECS]

...Move this to another thread or start another thread and we can discuss this further...

No point in further discussion if, as usual, you are not willing to cite your sources that are contrary in total opposition to established historical and/or archaeological documented records.
Saying everyone is wrong but you does not cut it as proof or evidence considering your history of misinformation and reliance on fabrications of quasi historian pulp authors like Diana Jean Muir that has corrupted the the Oak Island threads with fantasy facts.

 

[franklin]

Sorry your thinking is mindset.

 

[DaveVanP]

The lady of the lakes had a sword ? ? ?

Not when I dated her.

Every picture I see of her, she's holding a box of butter...

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”

- - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

 

[ECS]

Sorry your thinking is mindset.

Sorry that my "mindset thinking" is contingent on if one presents statements as "fact" that are highly questionable, one should provide evidence that support those "facts" when their validity is questioned.

 

[ECS]

... In the lineage of King Arthur I in the 4th Century, there was King Arthur II in the 6th Century and there was another King Arthur III later. And by 760 AD there was Arthur IV. They were real Kings...
All though their treasures may be at Oak Island. As they mined silver, gold and copper in this continent a thousand years or more before the Knights Templars ventured over in 1179 AD.

What makes the statement of "they mined...in this continent a thousand years or more before the Knights Templar..."
1. There is No historical record of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic mines in North America during the 2nd to 7th century.
2. There were NO vessels capable of making this voyage to North America and returning to Britain loaded with ore.
3. It has been documented by professional British academic historians that King Arthur of Camelot/Roundtable was fictional.

 

[ECS]

...All I can say is...Take My Word On It...Or Prove Me Wrong!

...and that seems to be the modus operandi with many of the claims posted as fact on these threads.
One doesn't even need to prove it "wrong", because when the information is only questioned due to its outlandish and dubious content and the source requested to be cited, the poster of said doubtful "facts" gets bent out of shape and makes derogative remarks concerning the questioner and professional historians for good measure, but NEVER provides any real source material in support of his nebulous statement of "fact".

There is such an academic process and method of the presentation of historical evidence which includes review by professionals in their respective fields of study. The alternative "suppressed" history revelations are NOT in No way real history, but an entertaining parody of true researched and documented history that the gullible conspiracy minded audience mistake for real actual history.
The "proving wrong" is in the nonacceptance of the community of professional academic historians and archaeologists who have dedicated their lifeworks on presenting and preserving the true story of history.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

So far there is overwhelming proof that those who say anything of value exists on Oak Island are wrong. Total lack of contradicting evidence.

Whether it did exist and was spirited off the island unannounced - harder to dispute.

But the simple answer is . . . you are mistaken if you think there was a treasure on Oak Island.

Unfortunately, until the whole island is sifted through a screen the hopeful will not surrender. And even then the'll just claim you missed a spot. You can't beat the faithful with physical evidence or logic. They run on dreams and fancy.

 

[n2mini]

So I fully understand your post.
"Anything of value" and a "treasure" are 2 different things. Though most would disagree.. but what I think your saying is if "anything of value" was found it wasn't purposely buried as the legend claims.. Something more or less dropped by someone and NOT purposely buried to hide it with the thought of coming back for it...Like say a Treasure Chest? Does that sound about right...