Oak Island: Was something even there.

[lokiblossom]

Loki I respect your silence on this. So you've seen a photo of the grave site and I can assume that the grave has a marker of some type that would distinguish it as a Templar grave? There's no doubt that if the Templars came to Acadia that they would have died here and no doubt left some sort of formal grave marking. I'm just trying to visualize what a Templar grave would look like.

For discussion sake I'm going to say that the Templars amongst others came to Acadia before 1492. Your research tells you that they had a settlement in New Ross of some type? I'm wondering why it is that they would have picked New Ross? The logistics would have been difficult. It would have been the little ice age with extreme winters in the interior.

Actually the "Little Ice Age" is said to have begun in the early 14th century and I have premised Templars in the area in 1308 looking for a home. They would have had no idea of such an event and I doubt it would have made much difference anyhow. The Norse still maintained settlements on Greenland at the time which was notably colder than Nova Scotia.
The later, actual historical settling of Nova Scotia was right in the middle of the "Little Ice Age".
Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[NewAge]

Actually the "Little Ice Age" is said to have begun in the early 14th century and I have premised Templars in the area in 1308 looking for a home. ......... I doubt it would have made much difference anyhow.

1308 is early in the 14th century.

This quote plus a previous one about castle remains is leading me to wonder how a person could put together an accurate ancient time line when they don't understand which century the years they are researching fit into.

The little ice age is said to have started in 1290-1300 but all the dates in this event are greatly debated by scientists who have studied this weather changing time period.

To be fair just a quick look into this and all I can see that would be a major hurdle for a new colony just getting started in NS during this time might be a shortened growing season.But this may have been a huge hurdle since you are sure your friend has a Templar Grave site on his property.Maybe they all starved to death?

 

[lokiblossom]

1308 is early in the 14th century.

This quote plus a previous one about castle remains is leading me to wonder how a person could put together an accurate ancient time line when they don't understand which century the years they are researching fit into.

The little ice age is said to have started in 1290-1300 but all the dates in this event are greatly debated by scientists who have studied this weather changing time period.

To be fair just a quick look into this and all I can see that would be a major hurdle for a new colony just getting started in NS during this time might be a shortened growing season.But this may have been a huge hurdle since you are sure your friend has a Templar Grave site on his property.Maybe they all starved to death?

I know exactly which century 1308 is in. What I was saying is that I premise the Templars arriving in Nova Scotia at about the same time The Little Ice Age is said to have been beginning, and maybe even a little before. Depending on when the experts actually determine the dates of the beginning and end of this debated period.

And what else I said is that all of the early historical settlements of Nova Scotia (that means those in the historical record) were started right smack in the middle of The Little Ice Age. This includes Port Royal in the early 17th century (that means early in the 1600's, or 1605 to be more exact).

So, with that being said, why would it be less likely for a Templar colony to survive, that started before The Little Ice Age began, then for a French colony that began in the middle of this Little Ice Age?

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

I know exactly which century 1308 is in.i

If you did then why did you state that early 14th century and 1308 do not correlate?

That is exactly what you wrote.

Until someone proves that Templars were in NS there is no sense in debating how they died or how they survived,
First we need to prove they were there and so far it seems all that evidence is classified and not for public viewing.

I did state that I myself don't think the little ice age would have had much affect but your dismissal of the question asked by another poster because the times didn't match was the reason for my post.

 

[lokiblossom]

If you did then why did you state that early 14th century and 1308 do not correlate?

That is exactly what you wrote.

Where did I write that?

 

[lokiblossom]

If you did then why did you state that early 14th century and 1308 do not correlate?

That is exactly what you wrote.

Until someone proves that Templars were in NS there is no sense in debating how they died or how they survived,
First we need to prove they were there and so far it seems all that evidence is classified and not for public viewing.

I did state that I myself don't think the little ice age would have had much affect but your dismissal of the question asked by another poster because the times didn't match was the reason for my post.

You know that is not what I wrote, so why do you keep repeating it? Anybody can go back a few posts and check.

And I did not dismiss Pippin's post, I answered it correctly.

What you think of my premise is nothing to me but please do not put words in my mouth.

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

What you think of my premise is nothing to me but please do not put words in my mouth.

I didn't hack into your computer and make that post.
In your zeal to discredit a valid question that didn't fit in neatly with your premise you made a huge mistake and have spent the last few hours trying to use smoke and mirrors to say it wasn't a mistake at all.

All I know is you think Templars were in NS in 1308 and also a small pile of stones is a foundation also linked to that time period..Your theory is of no interest to me because you refuse to believe the reports and conclusions of experts that have examined the Joan Harris property and said nothing of any historical value is there.But you do accept the sketches and opinions of a person with no archeological experience that has also claimed to see little green men and ghosts often wrote her messages.

Any theory that involves a castle or fortress being in NR on the former Harris property is doomed to fail.I have have much better things to do then read drivel based on findings from someone that sees little green men steal her neighbors car.

I am aware of your thread on your theory and if you have posted something of hard evidence (artifact linked to Templars,photos of unearthed Templar graves) please show me.

If all you have for evidence is text by you that is 100% conjecture.Don't bother.I have very little faith you have anything other then this.

 

[Bud Aurum]

All I know is you think Templars were in NS in 1308 and also a small pile of stones is a foundation also linked to that time period..Your theory is of no interest to me because you refuse to believe the reports and conclusions of experts that have examined the Joan Harris property and said nothing of any historical value is there.But you do accept the sketches and opinions of a person with no archeological experience that has also claimed to see little green men and ghosts often wrote her messages.

Any theory that involves a castle or fortress being in NR on the former Harris property is doomed to fail.I have have much better things to do then read drivel based on findings from someone that sees little green men steal her neighbors car.

I am aware of your thread on your theory and if you have posted something of hard evidence (artifact linked to Templars,photos of unearthed Templar graves) please show me.

If all you have for evidence is text by you that is 100% conjecture.Don't bother.I have very little faith you have anything other then this.[/QUOTE]


A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis.
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research.

My hypothesis is little people were hired and disguised as the little grey people who took her neighbors car for a joy ride for her to see/report and thus discredit her.
Not saying that is what I believe but it can be a working hypothesis.

Your Bud Aurum

 

[lokiblossom]

I didn't hack into your computer and make that post.
In your zeal to discredit a valid question that didn't fit in neatly with your premise you made a huge mistake and have spent the last few hours trying to use smoke and mirrors to say it wasn't a mistake at all.

All I know is you think Templars were in NS in 1308 and also a small pile of stones is a foundation also linked to that time period..Your theory is of no interest to me because you refuse to believe the reports and conclusions of experts that have examined the Joan Harris property and said nothing of any historical value is there.But you do accept the sketches and opinions of a person with no archeological experience that has also claimed to see little green men and ghosts often wrote her messages.

Any theory that involves a castle or fortress being in NR on the former Harris property is doomed to fail.I have have much better things to do then read drivel based on findings from someone that sees little green men steal her neighbors car.

I am aware of your thread on your theory and if you have posted something of hard evidence (artifact linked to Templars,photos of unearthed Templar graves) please show me.

If all you have for evidence is text by you that is 100% conjecture.Don't bother.I have very little faith you have anything other then this.

You told me that I said "early 14th century and 1308 do not correlate" I said I never said that and I didn't, in my opinion that is putting words in my mouth.

The question you claim I discredited was indeed a valid question and I answered it accurately and without malice, anybody who doubts this can go back a few posts and read my answer to Peppin.

Yes, i do think those stones laid out in a pattern are a foundation. As a matter of fact one of the major detractors, a budding archeologist, claims it was the foundation of a blacksmith shop.

Maybe it is doomed to fail, but IMHO it will not.

And btw, there is quite a bit of hard evidence in my theory thread, just none of which you require.

Like I said, I don't care what you think, or believe or even where your faith is, but please don't post personal stuff about me that you just make up.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

All I know is you think Templars were in NS in 1308 and also a small pile of stones is a foundation also linked to that time period..Your theory is of no interest to me because you refuse to believe the reports and conclusions of experts that have examined the Joan Harris property and said nothing of any historical value is there.But you do accept the sketches and opinions of a person with no archeological experience that has also claimed to see little green men and ghosts often wrote her messages.

Any theory that involves a castle or fortress being in NR on the former Harris property is doomed to fail.I have have much better things to do then read drivel based on findings from someone that sees little green men steal her neighbors car.

I am aware of your thread on your theory and if you have posted something of hard evidence (artifact linked to Templars,photos of unearthed Templar graves) please show me.

If all you have for evidence is text by you that is 100% conjecture.Don't bother.I have very little faith you have anything other then this.


A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis.
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research.

My hypothesis is little people were hired and disguised as the little grey people who took her neighbors car for a joy ride for her to see/report and thus discredit her.
Not saying that is what I believe but it can be a working hypothesis.

Your Bud Aurum

Oh snap! Can someone get Loki some aloe?

 

[NostraDanis]

Loki,

It appears that New Age is introducing "Alternate Quotes" in the same vein as the new "alternate facts" that are being discussed in DC.

I don't get the source of all the anger and poor manners directed at someone for presenting a premise, or theory, or whatever word you want to use to bolster your nastiness. What is wrong with someone on a forum presenting an idea that they openly state they cannot currently support with public facts? I would think that would be the point of discussion forums.

Why can't anyone disagree respectfully? Rather, it seems every thread ends up with the same group doing a you-can't-prove-it dance. This is a treasure-hunting forum, no? If you can prove what and where the treasure is, it is no longer being hunted; so, of course people don't have concrete evidence and proof! This isn't FoundTreasurenet!

Okay, have at me now.

 

[lokiblossom]

Oh snap! Can someone get Loki some aloe?

I'll be fine without the aloe, but thanks!

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

And btw, there is quite a bit of hard evidence in my theory thread, just none of which you require.

We must have a difference in opinion on what hard evidence actually is or otherwise they would be writing new history books.
For future reference this is what I consider hard evidence but I guess others could take it's meaning differently.

Hard evidence = "a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence"

 

[lokiblossom]

We must have a difference in opinion on what hard evidence actually is or otherwise they would be writing new history books.
For future reference this is what I consider hard evidence but I guess others could take it's meaning differently.

Hard evidence = "a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence"

IMHO, the term "hard evidence" would refer to documented and accepted historical evidence, and in the story of the Knights Templar Order there is plenty of it, even to the point of members of the Order escaping arrest in France with treasures. There is also historical testimony many left a French port a month before the historical arrests on 18 vessels. There is much speculation on where they may have gone along with some high members of the inner secret circle.
tying this available "hard evidence" with other known factors along with speculation is what produces my premise or theory.
The L'anse aux meadows site was finally discovered in much the same way.
Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

Why can't anyone disagree respectfully?

I don't see where I have been disrespectful towards Loki.

If I claim Templars have a grave site in my back yard.Should no one ask questions?Should everyone just agree with me that they did even though all I can post is my thoughts and no evidence they they were here?If I say the whole area was under water and uninhabitable early in the 17th century but it doesn't matter because my premise has the Templars on my property in 1608.Should I not be held accountable for that mistake?If an archeologist looks at my site and says nothing was here but my Grandmother says it was a Templar grave site.Should the archeologist's opinion be rejected and the untrained Grandmothers accepted with no questions asked.

I don't know what Loki's goal is with his work but if it is media attention,book deal,TV show if it is even any of these things.There are going to be detractors.And they are going to know a whole lot more then I do about the subject.They are going to ask a lot tougher questions.

If he can't handle a random internet poster asking some questions about his theory.
How does he expect to handle an expert that disagrees with him?

I understand a treasure hunter has to think outside the box but some people are thinking outside the whole box factory.

 

[lokiblossom]

I don't see where I have been disrespectful towards Loki.

If I claim Templars have a grave site in my back yard.Should no one ask questions?Should everyone just agree with me that they did even though all I can post is my thoughts and no evidence they they were here?If I say the whole area was under water and uninhabitable early in the 17th century but it doesn't matter because my premise has the Templars on my property in 1608.Should I not be held accountable for that mistake?If an archeologist looks at my site and says nothing was here but my Grandmother says it was a Templar grave site.Should the archeologist's opinion be rejected and the untrained Grandmothers accepted with no questions asked.

I don't know what Loki's goal is with his work but if it is media attention,book deal,TV show if it is even any of these things.There are going to be detractors.And they are going to know a whole lot more then I do about the subject.They are going to ask a lot tougher questions.

If he can't handle a random internet poster asking some questions about his theory.
How does he expect to handle an expert that disagrees with him?

I understand a treasure hunter has to think outside the box but some people are thinking outside the whole box factory.

Well, first you jumped on me for the way I answered Pippin's question and second claimed I didn't know what century I was in.

I don't mind detractors at all, I am actually quite used to it, lol. I did write a 300 plus page book on the subject over the last 10 years, but after I thought I finished it I realized it can't be finished until I or somebody proves my claims.

At L"anse aux meadows" Helge had a great advantage, his wife, Anne Stine, was a noted archaeologist.

Cheers, Loki

 

[sasquash]

The Vikings was there ... and the Knight Templars ... will see this year !

 

[Pippin]

Loki I noticed my question has sort of gotten buried with all this back and forth.

I'm not doubting the ability of the Templars in settling New Ross and yes the Acadians did survive and expand their settlements during the cold period. But the Acadians settled along the coasts where the climate was more moderate. They basically settled along the south western coast of Nova Scotia from Halifax round the Bay of Fundy , the Minas Basin and up the Bay of Fundy again. They actually had settlements in Mahone Bay and at one time La Heve was the capital. They were mostly an agrarian people who brought livestock with them, reclaimed land from the sea and because of this were self sufficient. That said the first few years were rough and they didn't expand their settlements until they were established.

It was the Mi'kmaq that saved them in the first few years and without their help they wouldn't have made it. The Mi'kmaq taught them how to prevent scurvy, provided them with food and got them through their first winters. The Acadians and Mi'kmaq intermarried and developed very close bonds . So even though the Acadians survived they needed help. I would think that if the Templars settled New Ross and actually survived for a few years the same type of help would be needed. But yet in the Acadian and Mi'kmaq culture there are strong oral histories of the interactions of the two and yet to the best of my knowledge there are no oral histories of the Templars and the Mi'kmaq. I'm perplexed by that.

I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit and getting away from my original question. My question to you is why do you think the Templars chose New Ross as the settlement site? I can't imagine them sailing into Mahone Bay looking at the hills and saying well that looks like as good a place as any. Do you think they came over before hand to scout the area and how long do you think they lived at New Ross? Was it just for 2 or 3 years or was it a continuous settlement.

I'm not being devious here. I'm just looking for your thoughts on this.

 

[Raparee]

I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit and getting away from my original question. My question to you is why do you think the Templars chose New Ross as the settlement site? I can't imagine them sailing into Mahone Bay looking at the hills and saying well that looks like as good a place as any. Do you think they came over before hand to scout the area and how long do you think they lived at New Ross? Was it just for 2 or 3 years or was it a continuous settlement.

I'm not being devious here. I'm just looking for your thoughts on this.

I have asked this question here as well. No real answers came of it. I believe one person said "I don't know", and another said "ley lines and vortex" or some similar foolishness.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a credible answer.

 

[lokiblossom]

Loki I noticed my question has sort of gotten buried with all this back and forth.

I'm not doubting the ability of the Templars in settling New Ross and yes the Acadians did survive and expand their settlements during the cold period. But the Acadians settled along the coasts where the climate was more moderate. They basically settled along the south western coast of Nova Scotia from Halifax round the Bay of Fundy , the Minas Basin and up the Bay of Fundy again. They actually had settlements in Mahone Bay and at one time La Heve was the capital. They were mostly an agrarian people who brought livestock with them, reclaimed land from the sea and because of this were self sufficient. That said the first few years were rough and they didn't expand their settlements until they were established.

It was the Mi'kmaq that saved them in the first few years and without their help they wouldn't have made it. The Mi'kmaq taught them how to prevent scurvy, provided them with food and got them through their first winters. The Acadians and Mi'kmaq intermarried and developed very close bonds . So even though the Acadians survived they needed help. I would think that if the Templars settled New Ross and actually survived for a few years the same type of help would be needed. But yet in the Acadian and Mi'kmaq culture there are strong oral histories of the interactions of the two and yet to the best of my knowledge there are no oral histories of the Templars and the Mi'kmaq. I'm perplexed by that.

I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit and getting away from my original question. My question to you is why do you think the Templars chose New Ross as the settlement site? I can't imagine them sailing into Mahone Bay looking at the hills and saying well that looks like as good a place as any. Do you think they came over before hand to scout the area and how long do you think they lived at New Ross? Was it just for 2 or 3 years or was it a continuous settlement.

I'm not being devious here. I'm just looking for your thoughts on this.

Actually the first of the historic settlements was Portuguese, with Basque fisherman beginning to show up around 1500, then the French. My opinion on the oral record is that as most of the Templars were also French and French surnames abound in the First Nations peoples the record wouldn't very well show the difference.

I wouldn't know why anyone would pick the New Ross (Charing Cross) site, except that Champlain sailed right by without any mention of Mahone Bay, which would seem to indicate it wasn't very noticeable. I have always premised there being somebody at the site until Catholic fisherman started showing up in the late 1400's or early 1500's when they moved to a site I already know about near Annapolis Basin.

When I first began this, I knew (premised) the Templars would have arrived there in 1308, and then I read about a woman who had claimed to find evidence of a 14th century habitation. With the dating of the Coconut Fibres on Oak Island being from the 12-13th century everything added up.

Coconut fibres were not used in Europe until the late 18th century, so the only way they could be on Oak Island with that date was if put there by somebody who had traded in the area of the Middle East or Eastern Mediterranean in or after the 13th century. The Templars didn't only trade there, their Headquarters were on Cyprus, and a large number of them left Cyprus in the early spring of 1307.
Cheers, Loki