What will possibly be discovered near Oak island at Charing Cross (New Ross) by FK.

[Ryano]

In Loki's defense this is his thread. He has cited multiple sources and logical reasoning for the place name "Charing Cross", and just because that name doesn't appear on any known maps of the area doesn't mean it wasn't colloquially identified as such by the locals.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

Its becoming quite evident that my friends at Blue Mountain know as much about this so called evidence as you do. I'm beginning to believe that the only evidence that you have is some coir, rocks with holes and a vivid imagination. As for this whole Charing Cross nonsense. The artillery gun was placed there as a remembrance of a World War 1 battle fought by the Royal Canadian Regiment.

The Royal Canadian Regiment; First World War; CEF War Diary; June, 1916

This is my definition of testy. I have attempted to not become testy in this discussion, but IMHO, every point is important. If FK finds what I believe is still there at Charing Cross, that will prove where the coconut coir came from on Oak Island. The marker I believe that is near (not 'at' btw) Blue Mountain, will show my claim of Annapolis Basin has validity. Most of my premise as well as much supporting evidence can be found on the "My Abbreviated Theory" thread (first few pages). The signs I referred to read "Charing Cross" and a "pm" means "private message".

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

This is one of the photos that impressed Loki so much he said he may revise his premise because of this evidence.

This sums up the value of the premise.

 

[lokiblossom]

View attachment 1453688

This is one of the photos that impressed Loki so much he said he may revise his premise because of this evidence.

This sums up the value of the premise.

Testy, aren't we!
That one photo is basically nothing as far as the whole of the premise is concerned. There is positive evidence of older structures at Charing Cross, whether or not those stones are part of it doesn't matter. Although FK thinks they are and I will go with him on that.

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

report the post

10-4

I just reported 3 different posts in this thread alone that falsely claim I posted something I didn't.
I will find the ones in other threads later when I have time and report those also.

 

[NewAge]

FK thinks they are and I will go with him on that.

That is probably not a good idea.

FK posted this in multiple threads on April 21 in this forum "We just signed with a film company to do our own TV show in New Ross and they want us to stop posting "
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/t...ehenge-site-found-new-ross-nova-scotia-3.html

Then on April 29 posted this on Facebook..........

April 29 at 1:00am ·
..
This summer Finders Keepers will be opening a office in Clearfield with high grade equipment to start our own think tank room. This room will be were we hunt down our treasure sites . Finders Keepers is up for our own TV series again . This time I think we will get it.

I can not link to this quote per forum rules but it is not hard to find.

This is completely opposite statements a week apart.Not sure why anyone would trust any of their claims after reading this.

 

[Raparee]

In Loki's defense this is his thread. He has cited multiple sources and logical reasoning for the place name "Charing Cross", and just because that name doesn't appear on any known maps of the area doesn't mean it wasn't colloquially identified as such by the locals.

Just for laughs, this morning I contacted seven New Ross residents that I know. I asked them about "Charing Cross". Five of them had never heard of New Ross ever being called "Charing Cross" by anyone. Two of these five mentioned that some people referred to the village as "the Cross", in their opinion, because of the crossroad. The remaining two (members of the New Ross Historical Society) had never heard the area referred to as "Charing Cross" by anyone other than Leopold through her book, and by those who cite her book. So if it was ever called "Charing Cross", even colloquially, it would be news to the locals. Not a scientific survey by any means, but head and shoulders above pointing statues and secret codes.

... but whether New Ross was ever called "Charing Cross" colloquially is irrelevant. Loki is on the record, in multiple threads on this forum, stating that New Ross was called "Charing Cross". Not "some people may have referred to New Ross as 'Charing Cross'". I believe that this change from actual name to colloquial name could be termed as 'moving the goalposts'.

BTW ... Loki has used neither multiple sources nor logical reasoning. He has used hearsay and third party information. If he wanted to have any credibility as a researcher, he needs to find original sources.

 

[Raparee]

There is positive evidence of older structures at Charing Cross[sic]...

Lets see it.

Although FK thinks they are and I will go with him on that.

You have stunningly low standards.

 

[lokiblossom]

Lets see it.



You have stunningly low standards.

FK's post #744 in the "Templar Vault Chamber..." thread has a photo of rock foundations by Joan!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Just for laughs, this morning I contacted seven New Ross residents that I know. I asked them about "Charing Cross". Five of them had never heard of New Ross ever being called "Charing Cross" by anyone. Two of these five mentioned that some people referred to the village as "the Cross", in their opinion, because of the crossroad. The remaining two (members of the New Ross Historical Society) had never heard the area referred to as "Charing Cross" by anyone other than Leopold through her book, and by those who cite her book. So if it was ever called "Charing Cross", even colloquially, it would be news to the locals. Not a scientific survey by any means, but head and shoulders above pointing statues and secret codes.

... but whether New Ross was ever called "Charing Cross" colloquially is irrelevant. Loki is on the record, in multiple threads on this forum, stating that New Ross was called "Charing Cross". Not "some people may have referred to New Ross as 'Charing Cross'". I believe that this change from actual name to colloquial name could be termed as 'moving the goalposts'.

BTW ... Loki has used neither multiple sources nor logical reasoning. He has used hearsay and third party information. If he wanted to have any credibility as a researcher, he needs to find original sources.

And you don't accept the Nova Scotia Superintendent of Education? I didn't say it was called Charing Cross yesterday, but have proved it was called that in 1905! Not third party sources, but people who knew the name of the village.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

FK's post #744 in the "Templar Vault Chamber..." thread has a photo of rock foundations by Joan!

Cheers, Loki

So where is the "positive evidence" that these foundations (if that is what they are) are older than what would be expected?

 

[lokiblossom]

10-4

I just reported 3 different posts in this thread alone that falsely claim I posted something I didn't.
I will find the ones in other threads later when I have time and report those also.

My statements come from your posts at 717 through 738 in the "Templar Vault Chamber..." thread, and your insinuations! Perhaps you don't understand sarcasm?

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

So where is the "positive evidence" that these foundations (if that is what they are) are older than what would be expected?

A relative term, meaning, older then what was there at the time. And, if they are not, what are they?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

A relative term, meaning, older then what was there at the time. And, if they are not, what are they?

Cheers, Loki

So where is the "positive evidence" that these foundations (if that is what they are) are older than what would be expected?

 

[lokiblossom]

So where is the "positive evidence" that these foundations (if that is what they are) are older than what would be expected?

I wrote "positive evidence of older structures" you added the "than what would be expected". The first argument was that the stones did not represent foundations. My point is they do represent foundations of older buildings then were there at the time, the positive aging is yet to be determined.

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

My statements come from your posts at 717 through 738 in the "Templar Vault Chamber..." thread, and your insinuations! Perhaps you don't understand sarcasm?

So what you are saying now is your claims of me stating that codes were needed to be followed in the 14th century is something you made up in the way of sarcasm?

I'm ok with that.

So it is safe to say
You make up stuff in the way of sarcasm to advance your argument at times.......correct?

 

[lokiblossom]

So what you are saying now is your claims of me stating that codes were needed to be followed in the 14th century is something you made up in the way of sarcasm?

I'm ok with that.

So it is safe to say
You make up stuff in the way of sarcasm to advance your argument at times.......correct?

Well, you insinuated and I countered with sarcasm!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

So to reiterate my position; IMHO, I expect FK, or somebody who eventually archaeologically investigates the site at Charing Cross (New Ross) to find evidence of a 14th century habitation that at some point had been removed. At, or near nearby Blue Mountain there should be a marker referencing a later site near Annapolis Basin. Interestingly, several of the parchments discovered at Rennes le Chateau in the late 19th century were locked in a bank vault at Charing Cross, London.

If this is settled I can go on to paintings and statues pointing fingers a religious group that flourished at Rennes le Chateau in the 12th century and some Oak Island connections.

Cheers, Loki

 

[NewAge]

Well, you insinuated and I countered with sarcasm!

That had to be a real kick in the teeth when you finally went back to try and find the post you thought you had read......only to find there was none.

Maybe you should take another look at your research.Alot of people are telling you it is flawed.Maybe if you go back thru whatever you use for research,you will discover that things are not there that you imagined were there the first time you read it.

Then you can post that your whole premise was just sarcasm.

 

[lokiblossom]

That had to be a real kick in the teeth when you finally went back to try and find the post you thought you had read......only to find there was none.

Maybe you should take another look at your research.Alot of people are telling you it is flawed.Maybe if you go back thru whatever you use for research,you will discover that things are not there that you imagined were there the first time you read it.

Then you can post that your whole premise was just sarcasm.

You sure have a strange way of thinking. I knew what I had written and I knew what you had written. I did have to go back to get the number of the post is all. You probably should knock off your meds for awhile or maybe take stronger doses, something might work for you!

Cheers, Loki