What REALLY happened to the wealth of Knights Templar

[ClonedSIM]

Af, you're over thinking things. I was making a simple point that, flight was always possible. And you never answered my question, was the earth flat or round in the dark ages?

Nope, CC. You're under-thinking things, as usual.

Flight was not always possible. The theory of flight may have existed, and surely the thirst to fly always existed, but prior to planes, balloons, parachutes, etc, was flight possible? No. To say that flight was always possible is patently incorrect, and there is no way around this.

As far as the Earth being flat in the Dark Ages, I'm really not sure why you'd want the answer to such a question. If you can tell me your reason for asking, perhaps we can find you an answer to this head-scratcher of a conundrum.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Dear group;
OK, let's take a current situation. Can a spaceship travel beyond the speed of light? According to Einstein, no, nothing can attain the speed of light. This DOES NOT mean that space travel beyond the speed of light is impossible however. It simply means that space travel at velocities greater than the speed of light are impossible AT THIS TIME! Period. One CANNOT predict that which is UNKNOWN with any degree of certainty.
Your friend;
LAMAR

So, was Einstein wrong, or do the laws of physics change as we learn more and are able to achieve more?

Neither, CC, he's simply employing your brilliant assertation from earlier.

"If there's no proof, then something cannot be proved wrong."

Can you provide proof that man will not be able, someday, to move faster than the speed of light? Because, unless you can provide proof of this, then Lamar's statements is most-assuredly true.

Now, why would you argue with your own logic, CC? That's rather illogical, wouldn't you say?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

As far as the Earth being flat in the Dark Ages, I'm really not sure why you'd want the answer to such a question. If you can tell me your reason for asking, perhaps we can find you an answer to this head-scratcher of a conundrum.

And I'M the one under thinking?
Okay, I'll try to explain it again, and this time try reading a little slower.
If we believe the earth to be round...(following so far?)..., then the truth of that existed before the proof if it existed. You said that, without proof there is nothing to prove. The above proves you wrong.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Dear group;
OK, let's take a current situation. Can a spaceship travel beyond the speed of light? According to Einstein, no, nothing can attain the speed of light. This DOES NOT mean that space travel beyond the speed of light is impossible however. It simply means that space travel at velocities greater than the speed of light are impossible AT THIS TIME! Period. One CANNOT predict that which is UNKNOWN with any degree of certainty.
Your friend;
LAMAR

So, was Einstein wrong, or do the laws of physics change as we learn more and are able to achieve more?

Neither, CC, he's simply employing your brilliant assertation from earlier.

"If there's no proof, then something cannot be proved wrong."

Can you provide proof that man will not be able, someday, to move faster than the speed of light? Because, unless you can provide proof of this, then Lamar's statements is most-assuredly true.

Now, why would you argue with your own logic, CC? That's rather illogical, wouldn't you say?

Okay Af, let me try this one again too, just for you. Remember, read a little slower.

You guys(?) say that a certain something IS NOT TRUE! You say it can't be true because there's no proof. But when YOU offer no proof to the contrary, then there's NO proof either way. That's what I meant by "NO" proof. Understand? Now, you can argue all day about you not being required to prove something wrong. Fine, but my statement stands, when there is NO proof offered, either way, then the thing is not proved right OR wrong. Then all we have are opinions by two opposing sides. If you're so big on proving everything, then why not offer some to us.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Can you provide proof that man will not be able, someday, to move faster than the speed of light? Because, unless you can provide proof of this, then Lamar's statements is most-assuredly true.

Af, if man ever goes faster than the speed of light, either Einstein was wrong, or we found a way to break the law of physics. I was simply asking Lamar which he believed, because he said that exceeding the speed of light may not be an impossibility.
He chose the low road, because he is a low creature, as all serpents are.
Af, find yourself someone else to look up to, okay?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

You guys? say that a certain something IS NOT TRUE! You say it can't be true because there's no proof. But when you offer no proof to the contrary, then there's NO proof either way. That's what I meant by "NO" proof. Understand? Now, you can argue all day about you not being required to prove something wrong. Fine, but my statement stands, when there is NO proof offered, either way, then the thing is not proved right OR wrong. Then all we have are opinions by two opposing sides. If you're so big on proving everything, then why not offer some to us.

You cannot argue events that could possibly happen in the future and claim because it eventually did happen...that is the proof it lacked in the past.

Specifically, are you referring to flight, the earth being round, or the speed of light?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Specifically....."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence at the time a claim is made. Not a few hundred years later"

Does that mean that if the evidence is not forthcoming, the idea is wrong?

 

[lamar]

Dear SWR;
You may as well give up my friend. It's becoming obvious that you are debating a subject with someone who cannot seem to grasp the concept which is under discussion. People such as this keep turning the debate 'round and 'round in circles, because they cannot proceed as they are unable to understand, and in light of this, you will never make any forward progress. It's simply beyond their capacity, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Dear SWR;
You may as well give up my friend. It's becoming obvious that you are debating a subject with someone who cannot seem to grasp the concept which is under discussion. People such as this keep turning the debate 'round and 'round in circles, because they cannot proceed as they are unable to understand, and in light of this, you will never make any forward progress. It's simply beyond their capacity, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

And yet, I stumped YOU. What does that say about you, Lamar? Everyone can see it.

And why don't you let SWR answer his own questions, if he wants too. Maybe it's because you deem yourself an object of worship. Should we kiss YOUR ring too, Lamar, of just the one your master wears?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Dear SWR;
You may as well give up my friend. It's becoming obvious that you are debating a subject with someone who cannot seem to grasp the concept which is under discussion. People such as this keep turning the debate 'round and 'round in circles, because they cannot proceed as they are unable to understand, and in light of this, you will never make any forward progress. It's simply beyond their capacity, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

And yet, I stumped YOU. What does that say about you, Lamar? Everyone can see it.

And why don't you let SWR answer his own questions, if he wants too. Maybe it's because you deem yourself an object of worship. Should we kiss YOUR ring too, Lamar, of just the one your master wears?

I'm not accustomed to answering my own questions. I know the answer before I ask me.

Lamar is right. Think I'll just fade out and help the guys over in the Confederate Gold legends find a few tons of gold. We have proof it existed, because it hasn't been found...yet, but once it is found the proof we didn't have before is now valid proof it existed in the first place.

If you find the answers to questions you've been asked on THIS thread, I'll be waiting.

So far, neither of you have been able get by what I said about the shape of the earth in the dark ages. You "smart" people have not been very impressive. I'm beginning to think you're just a bunch of clucks. Am I right?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

You guys? say that a certain something IS NOT TRUE! You say it can't be true because there's no proof. But when you offer no proof to the contrary, then there's NO proof either way. That's what I meant by "NO" proof. Understand? Now, you can argue all day about you not being required to prove something wrong. Fine, but my statement stands, when there is NO proof offered, either way, then the thing is not proved right OR wrong. Then all we have are opinions by two opposing sides. If you're so big on proving everything, then why not offer some to us.

You cannot argue events that could possibly happen in the future and claim because it eventually did happen...that is the proof it lacked in the past.

Specifically, are you referring to flight, the earth being round, or the speed of light?

SWR, you made the claim that I am guilty of the above. I asked you to explain what you were referring to. You couldn't. YOU made the claim, so YOU must offer proof. That's the way it works, right? But if that stumps you, then be a coward and go play on a thread that's a little less threatening.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

That's what I thought.

 

[jeff of pa]

Re: What REALLY happened to the wealth of Knights Templar​

 

[lamar]

Dear Jeff of Pa;
That happens to be a VERY good question, my moderator stick wielding friend! It's known that the Templars DID control a vast amount of monetary wealth during a time when actual monetary wealth was in short supply throughout Christendom. It seems to have evaporated into thin air as it were.

The reason why I state this is because there was no influx of wealth in any Christian kingdom immediately following the disssolution of the Templars. In fact, things were pretty much "business as usual" until at least the 1350s. Due to the extreme shortage of documents and physical evidence remaining, one can only assume that the lions' share of the wealth of the Templars was already loaned out and was in fact "working" when the Templars were arrested. This SEEMS to be the only logical conclusion, my friend, however I am still open to other possibilities, as long as they seem logical, at least outwardly.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Lamar,

"The reason why I state this is because there was no influx of wealth in any Christian kingdom immediately following the disssolution of the Templars. In fact, things were pretty much "business as usual" until at least the 1350s. Due to the extreme shortage of documents and physical evidence remaining, one can only assume that the lions' share of the wealth of the Templars was already loaned out and was in fact "working" when the Templars were arrested."

Excellent reasoning. It's also possible that any funds the Templars had in their possession, were confiscated and no record was ever generated. I believe that would have been fairly common in those days.

Had the Pope confiscated the funds, all records could very well have been suppressed. It's always possible that the Templars, who weren't arrested, hid some wealth.......... somewhere. Scotland seems as good as any other place. America seems a stretch, to me.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning: I must apologize for responding to SWR's usual little dog barking behind Lamar's robe, or others of his temp hero's. I have deleted a long post to him in respect to the peace and continuity of the subject and room. Besides his opinion of me, personally, is the least of my worries. Yes, I do pat myself on the back, but I believe that I have earned it, as well as being elected into the Elite Explorers club by my Illustrious peers. So much for that subject. I do not have to defend myself, my record does that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lamar It has occurred to me several times in this conversation -->

"Where is the wealth of the Knights of Templar".

I believe that the basic answer is too obvious, but perhaps overlooked. Money is a curious substance, when it is used for a loan, generally a form of collateral is required.
.
What would be considered collateral in those days? Land of course, . So if they had a successfull operation then "most of the physical money was in circulation", not in a strong box, only the collateral, LAND , was there. and the collateral was used as a basis for loans also

As a result, when the operation was shut down, most of the physical money was out in circulation leaving only the collateral. they had virtually nothing to hide and the owners of the collateral simply, quietly, retired them from the Knights coffers. Since the knights form of records was known only to them, who could prove otherwise?

So, for all purposes, there are / where no hidden coffers for the Knight of Templar to hide. Obviously there was a certain amount of physical money on hand, but not the amounts generally described.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Cactus, Lamar, How-in-ell did you manage to post virtually the same post as i, while I was writing it,

I ate breakfast, and dewormed the tomatoes after starting it, then deleted my long post to Swr, so I missed both of your posts..

Hmm Telepathy, or great minds think alike?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Jose,

Since the Templars were doing something they were not supposed to do.....Loan sharking, it's possible there was NO collateral. In other words, signature loans....so to speak. Honor was worth something in those days.

Who really knows the extent of the Templars banking activities. Are there some physical records that have survived, or are we depending on unsubstantiated/undocumented stories?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Cactus: undocumented does not mean non-existance hheehh Honor was selective even in those days. Also life had a bad reputation of ending unexpectedly, so physical collateral was preferred.

Don Jose de la Mancha

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
Actually, the amount of physical wealth which the Templars had accrued in the form of hard assests, ie, arrable farming land, castles, mansions, estates etc, was substantial. On paper, the Templars had accquired these assests in the form of donations and the wills of those deceased, but in reality I feel personally feel that a large percentage of these *donations* were in fact done so because the debtors had used hard property as security and then could not repay their loans to the Templars which in turn meant that the debtor would *bequeath* the physical assest in question to the Templar Order at the time of their death. The document bequeathing the said property would have been in the Templars care until the debtor died, then it would have been presented to the proper authorities and the property henceforth would fall under Templar control.

Please understand that I am NOT stating this is what happened, merely what POSSIBLY could have happened.
Your friend;
LAMAR