coconut coir: a history

Raparee did you know that there's a Charing Cross in Ontario as well. Could be a Templar site.
 

You have to have some other sources of information?

When a noted archeologist looked at the site where you claim the Templars built a fort in 1308 says nothing there predates the 19th century.Your choices start getting pretty slim.
 

Raparee did you know that there's a Charing Cross in Ontario as well. Could be a Templar site.

It has to be a Templar site. There is no other reasonable choice. :laughing7:
 

I didn't see that episode, nor have I seen the documentation of the Lagina's SEM ID, but considering the show tried to convince it's viewers that a railroad spike was a deck nail off a Spanish galleon, I have difficulty believing anything from them.

The NRC? Well, I give you that one.... tentatively, and only until I have the time to look into it further.

So, there's one ID for coconut, one for Manila hemp, and a bunch of 'I don't know'.

Thats your argument then, that they are liars? And it was three samples out of four that were identified as coconut fibre.

I'm going to drop out of this for awhile, you have too many on your side of the discussion that are only here to belittle.

And, btw there is much more to it then simply a statue pointing at the letter "R", you know that.

You guys have fun slapping each other on the back and I'll have fun reading your posts.
 

Last edited:
Thats your argument then, that they are liars? And it was three samples out of four that were identified as coconut fibre.

Liars? Well, you tell me. Right now on the show they are digging up Smith's Cove to investigate the infrastructure there, acting like it's the first time anyone has done so. They have credibility issues, and I'm not inclined to take anything they say at face value. It's a 'reality' TV show. Entertainment, not education.

And, btw there is much more to it then simply a statue pointing at the letter "R", you know that.

So you say. But if your premise is based on that sort of nonsensical mental gymnastics, why should the rest of your argument be taken seriously?

I'm going to drop out of this for awhile, you have too many on your side of the discussion that are only here to belittle.

If your theory can't withstand scrutiny, or if you can't defend your theory in a rational manner (that doesn't involve cherry picking data), then by all means, run away.

You guys have fun slapping each other on the back ...

Will do.
 

If your theory can't withstand scrutiny, or if you can't defend your theory in a rational manner (that doesn't involve cherry picking data), then by all means, run away.

When did I say I was running away? I'm not a coward, I said I was going to drop out for awhile!

Cheers, Loki
 

When did I say I was running away? I'm not a coward, I said I was going to drop out for awhile!

The questions you didn't answer will still be waiting to be answered when you drop back in.
 

Of all those questions yours will be the ones I don't answer!
Cheers, loki

Good idea

Because your theory can't hold up to reasonable questions.

An even better idea is to hitch your wagon to FindersKeepers and chase ley lines around.
 

Last edited:
Good idea

Because your theory can't hold up to reasonable questions.

An even better idea is to hitch your wagon to FindersKeepers and chase ley lines around.

This from a guy who thinks a 14th century structure should be built to U.S. building codes!

Cheers, Loki

Btw, a lot of discussion about coconut fibres from Ms. Steele.
 

In the Beta Analytic mention of coconut fiber, I got the impression that it was a reply to a question that was posed in regards to the sample... maybe just me though...
 

This from a guy who thinks a 14th century structure should be built to U.S. building codes!

Cheers, Loki

Btw, a lot of discussion about coconut fibres from Ms. Steele.

Loki, I just stumbled across a huge discovery last night.

I watched the newest Ghostbusters movie last night and they used ley lines to lead them to a vortex where the villain was going to release 1000's of ghosts.They had an official looking book in that movie with all kinds of maps for ley lines.You should contact the producers and see if they will let you look at that book.

Since I have your attention what chapter in your book about Templars building in New Ross in 1308 on the Joan Harris property covers the findings of Birgitta Wallace a noted archeologist who looked at her site?
 

Loki, I just stumbled across a huge discovery last night.

I watched the newest Ghostbusters movie last night and they used ley lines to lead them to a vortex where the villain was going to release 1000's of ghosts.They had an official looking book in that movie with all kinds of maps for ley lines.You should contact the producers and see if they will let you look at that book.

Since I have your attention what chapter in your book about Templars building in New Ross in 1308 on the Joan Harris property covers the findings of Birgitta Wallace a noted archeologist who looked at her site?

Its my understanding that Wallace didn't attempt to find anything at New Ross. It was just a walk about and an interview, a dig didn't happen. If I remember things correctly it was more to appease Joan Harris as she was constantly hounding the government over the site. A proper dig has never been attempted.
 

Loki, I just stumbled across a huge discovery last night.

I watched the newest Ghostbusters movie last night and they used ley lines to lead them to a vortex where the villain was going to release 1000's of ghosts.They had an official looking book in that movie with all kinds of maps for ley lines.You should contact the producers and see if they will let you look at that book.

Since I have your attention what chapter in your book about Templars building in New Ross in 1308 on the Joan Harris property covers the findings of Birgitta Wallace a noted archeologist who looked at her site?

You don't really have my attention, I just happen to read these post and there you are!

I don't know how you connect me with "ley lines" I have always considered such things as coincidence or in some instances "man made", such as certain church alignments.

If your going to argue a point at least get your facts straight, it was Lindsay who wrote there was "no point for further investigation" (in the book btw). He also said the rough stone foundations were of much later structures, which kind of blows your "could not be foundations" out of the water. Maybe they didn't need building permits when 'whoever' built them.

Brian Cuthbertson considered that they were from a blacksmith shop, also probably built without a building permit, don't you think?

See, there are much smarter detractors involved in this than you, but I do enjoy humoring you.

A lot of talk about coconut fibre on the Ms. Steele thread!

Cheers, Loki
 

Last edited:
I think the interview and the walk around told them that the property owners had destroyed the site with their digging. That's why there was no need to dig further.
 

I think the interview and the walk around told them that the property owners had destroyed the site with their digging. That's why there was no need to dig further.

They also examined the 'artifacts' that Harris found, and determined that they were nothing significant.
 

I think the interview and the walk around told them that the property owners had destroyed the site with their digging. That's why there was no need to dig further.

Which was certainly true.

Cheers, Loki
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom