Scott Wolter has it wrong

Please post your theories for discussion here. Expect plenty of questions and devil's advocacy.

Moderators: Jo, admiralbenbow, Keeled_over

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:46 am

n4n224ccw wrote:
wayward wrote:
Yeah, I know it was a cross roads, but it seems you cherry picked your sources.



(1)Yes, primary source documents which date back to the earliest history. As Judge DesBrisay wrote: “New Ross Cross, the intersection of…”

There are many places in Nova Scotia where the suffix cross was added into the name due to cross roads intersecting the community, including two just down the road from New Ross.



wayward wrote:" Extent of New Ross: It embraces the smaller communities of Forties, Leville, Glengarry, and Seffernville, in addition to the central CHARING CROSS."


(2)Nothing more than using a recent nickname to identify the location

wayward wrote:"CHARING CROSS, the central section of New Ross recieved its name in the early days of the settlement of Sherbrooke. The name is usually shortened to The Cross."


(3)That statement is totally untrue, unless of course a source dating to the period says otherwise.


wayward wrote:In an article within "The Southshore Now" dated June 23,1999, by Mill Road resident Bob Rafuse: "Charing Cross is named after an old Railroad station in England".


(4)No doubt about an external association to the UK; however, Charing Cross adoption is modern.

wayward wrote:Also interesting is the words on the 1914 machine gun stand which certainly predates the gun, and reads simply, "CHARING CROSS".

And the monument that replaces it reads "originally placed at CHARING CROSS"

It would seem from that resident Oscar Sinclair Elliott who was born in 1857 and placed the gun, freely accepted that name.


(5)I think this is the origins to when Charing Cross came into the vocabulary associated with New Ross and nothing more than an interesting souvenir brought home from abroad due to the word Cross and of course the cross roads.

(6)How do you know the plaque predates the gun and not contemporary to the gun?



(1) M.B. DesBrisay was one of the sources listed by Mrs, Leopold in her "History of New Ross", and certainly there are many places simply referred to as "The Cross" including the one we are discussing, But in this case "The Cross" is a shortened version of "Charing Cross".

(2) You think! see 3 below

(3) In this statement as well as the one before, wayward, quoted Mrs. Catherine (Broome) Leopold who herself names your two sources as also her own sources. Her qoute "The story of the settlement of New Ross is compiled in part from "The History of the County of Lunenburg" by M.B. DesBrisay and from "A History of Sherwood" by Herman D. Levy. In the preface of her own book she mentions how she had tediously copied information from both os these sources. Also keep in mind, Catherine herself was raised in the community of New Ross and would have heard these names firsthand, yet you say, she was "WRONG", even though she also says in her preface that many of the local residents helped her in this endeavor.

(4) You say! Please read (3) above.

(5) and (6) Yes, the concrete could be contempory to the placement of the gun, but as you use the phrase "I think" quite often, I will use it here, AS I look at the photo of the gun on the concrete, I think the concrete is older then the 1914 date. But even if not it shows the name of "Charing Cross" quite early on. What evidence do you have that the name was merely a very early 20th century addition.

As for your maps, I would think they would be sourced as any kind of evidence only if they also show the other small communes that make up the old New Ross area, which consist of, Aaldersville, Forties, Fraxville, Lake Ramsay, Mill Road, Harriston, Glegarry, Seffernville (called earlier, Dutch Settlement) or Leville.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby n4n224ccw on Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:18 am

On my way home from work today I swung by New Ross and met up with an old friend, I live down the road at Vaughan NS, where the New Ross Road and the Windsor Rd (Hwy 14) intersect.

We discussed the issue at hand and he laughed.

During 1999 some New Ross folks got a little upset when a roadside sign with the name Charing Cross was removed. Letters were wrote to the Bulletin and a little debate flourished over the origins to the name of Charing Cross which brought in a member from the local historical society.

I've included links to the letters so you can go and read the yourself and I think you'll get a laugh from a couple

http://www.southshorenow.ca/old_site/ar ... ers/5.html

http://www.southshorenow.ca/old_site/ar ... ers/4.html

http://www.southshorenow.ca/old_site/ar ... rs/14.html

http://www.southshorenow.ca/old_site/ar ... ers/4.html

http://www.southshorenow.ca/old_site/ar ... ers/6.html

There are a few suggestions, but never Charing Cross predating Sherbrooke or New Ross, other than for Leopold's claim.

As you can read in the one letter, the author never had time or space to offer comments on Leopold's book. In one letter the author says the name Charing Cross does not appear on a single map, locally produce or even by the government.

One writer claims the 1901 census shows Charing Cross in an effort to claim the term was that old; however, that was before the 1901 census was readily available online. Since then the 1901 census has been made public. You can go look for yourself but will see there is no Charing Cross reference in the New Ross area or even Lunenburg County. There are only 26 pages to look through.

http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/190 ... ensus.aspx

Additionally the 1921 census is now available online and it does included a few of the lesser known areas within New Ross, but no Charing Cross. You can get yourself a free account and look for yourself.

http://www.ancestry.ca/Census

I'll swing by the archives and see what they have on Oscar Sinclair Elliott. Dedications and monuments and the likes usually have a newspaper article. While I'm there, I'll look into the letter books to find the community name Captain Ross wrote letters from and to where government folks were writing him. I dare say it is Sherbrooke.
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:26 am

n4n224ccw wrote:

During 1999 some New Ross folks got a little upset when a roadside sign with the name Charing Cross was removed. Letters were wrote to the Bulletin and a little debate flourished over the origins to the name of Charing Cross which brought in a member from the local historical society.

I've included links to the letters so you can go and read the yourself and I think you'll get a laugh from a couple

As you can read in the one letter, the author never had time or space to offer comments on Leopold's book. In one letter the author says the name Charing Cross does not appear on a single map, locally produce or even by the government.

One writer claims the 1901 census shows Charing Cross in an effort to claim the term was that old; however, that was before the 1901 census was readily available online. Since then the 1901 census has been made public. You can go look for yourself but will see there is no Charing Cross reference in the New Ross area or even Lunenburg County. There are only 26 pages to look through.

Additionally the 1921 census is now available online and it does included a few of the lesser known areas within New Ross, but no Charing Cross. You can get yourself a free account and look for yourself.




Yes. I knew about the removal of the signs naming "Charing Cross"!

I tried to read your letters and had only scanned through them when the link attacked my computor. I am not positive they were the culprit though.

One of the letters suggested a different use for the name "Charing Cross", which would be- either going to the "Cross" or meeting at the "Cross". This is similar to the use of the Charing Cross in todays London.

Another quoted an article from an issue of the bulletin that states "Charing Cross" may have been named by a George Turner who moved to New Ross in 1845 from a village called Charing Cross in London. This person goes on to say that there was no village called Charing Cross in England, it was only the location of a cross.

Both of these examples are somewhat correct, and certainly show that my original premise is correct, "nobody knows the true origin of the name". Although one point is untrue, there is a village by that name in England, its just not the one in London.

You mention that neither the 1901 or 1921 census do not mention Charing Cross and yet we both know the name existed in relation to the area at least as early as 1914. And we do have a reference to an 1845 date, as well as the reference to an even earlier date by Mrs. Leopold.

I should reiterate my points with this thread.(1) I think the name Charing Cross in the New Ross area predates accepted white settlement in the area of New Ross. It was not originaly a village, but a location, and after its removal in the early 16th century the name remained as a memory with the indigenous population and was passed by word of mouth to the arriving white settlers (I do have information relative to this that I cannot share yet, a copout I know. but it is what it is).
(2) I don't think Joan Hope received proper credit by Scott Wolter during his History Channel program on the ancient foundation and well at New Ross.

As for the Charing Cross in London, it is a corruption of the french word "Chere Reine" (my beloved queen). Although it is true there was a "Cyrringe" already located near there (I have a1002 survey that mentions it as a point, and some suggest it was merely a bend in the river), King Edwards proclamation at the dedication of the 12th and last of the Eleanor Crosses in 1294 changed the name forever to "Chere Reine", (hence Charing Cross)". This is also alluded to in a 1593 play by George Peele called "Chronicle of King Edward I".
With the area of Cyrringe being simply an open field and Temple Church located about 1000 yds. down the road it would have been certain that some of these Templars would have attended the dedication, as well as having watched the actual construction of the Cross.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby n4n224ccw on Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:11 pm

wayward wrote:
I do have information relative to this that I cannot share yet, a copout I know. but it is what it is.


Why didn't you say this in the first place? Lots of folks bouncing in and out of this forum over the years have secret information which they cannot share, we all understand that, especially information about Knights Templar in Nova Scotia during the 1300s and which managed to hide from an army of researchers and archivists.

wayward wrote:(2) I don't think Joan Hope received proper credit by Scott Wolter during his History Channel program on the ancient foundation and well at New Ross.


Exactly what credit should she get?

What she claims is nothing more than fantasy. I'm certain you are familiar with the library of hope which Lisa was so kind to share online, so surely you are familiar with the photographs.

Some of the images show rows of stones in neat arrangements which Joan interpreted as foundations for walls dating to the 1300s.

Tree root balls grow around stones and trees grow between stones. When trees topple, like the trees in Nova Scotia frequently do, they move the stones. Foundations and field stone walls quickly loose their neat pattern with every successive generation of tree. Depending on soil and depth, type of trees, and yearly storms, this destructive cycle of stone moving can happen quickly.

The troubling part of Joan’s back yard was that she did not fall any mature trees during her exploration. This indicates she already had a backyard cleared by the time she arrived at New Ross. Given the thin layer of soil which covered her ‘walls’ it does not stand up to known natural processes for these stones to remain in such a neat pattern since the 1300s. These photographs are clear visual evidence to prove the site is not 100s of years old.

Someone at some point prior to Joan’s arrival cleared the trees which means removing the sumps, yet the stones remained untouched. This can only mean the stones were placed after the land was cleared if we are to accept the stones remained in the exact position as Joan found them.

Here in Nova Scotia we see the scattering of known stone walls and foundations of unquestionable origins to a point where they no longer resemble a wall or foundation. Imagine if you will what was once a line of piled stones a few feet in height is now deteriorated to a wide swath of randomly placed stones 10 or more feet width.

While post Planter and Loyalist sites do show this action, the earlier French sites from the 1600s really suffer from this natural forest process. Suggesting Joan’s stones date to the 1300s and managed to avoid this natural scattering process is wishful thinking.

Back during the late 1980s I did read a reference to the early folks of Sherbrooke discovering a rye or barely field and a few apple trees. That certainly was interesting to read and definitely should not have been observed if they were the first folks to work the area. One author has even suggested the field naturally sowed and the orchard survived since the 1300s.

As with the apple tree from which Rev Seccombe pick on his second day in Shoreham, research in the archives removes many assumptions which allowed for such mysterious speculation to exist.

Not only does Wolter have it wrong, but a few others too. When guys like him make poorly informed comments, one must question just how well versed he might be with his other research (KRS).
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:19 am

n4n224ccw wrote:
wayward wrote:
I do have information relative to this that I cannot share yet, a copout I know. but it is what it is.


Why didn't you say this in the first place? Lots of folks bouncing in and out of this forum over the years have secret information which they cannot share, we all understand that, especially information about Knights Templar in Nova Scotia during the 1300s and which managed to hide from an army of researchers and archivists.




Thank you for being so predictable, although you didn't say exactly what I told my friends you would it was close enough for me to win a beer :lol: .

I'll discuss what I want to about Joan and her discoveries tomorrow.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:19 am

[
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby n4n224ccw on Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:27 am

wayward wrote:
Thank you for being so predictable, although you didn't say exactly what I told my friends you would it was close enough for me to win a beer :lol: .

I'll discuss what I want to about Joan and her discoveries tomorrow.


Resorting to possessing secret information typically comes out when the main arguments are shown to not be grounded in reality, that wayward is the predictable part we have see on this forum time and time again.

I doubt you have secret information, like so many others, for if you did then you'd have resources. With your resources you'd be here in NS with a Category C Archeological permit and exploring your theory on the ground, better yet, we'd be reading all about what you found or watching it on TV, rather than reading here on this forum a disjointed musings of alternate history .

There have been a few groups (two extremely well funded and staffed with professionals) and individuals who have had their thoughts, came to NS over many seasons and searched for tangible evidence of their Knights Templar. It certainly makes for captivating adventure and just once I wish someone would offer actual evidence or tangible and verifiable proof rather than a regurgitation of conjecture copied from another's work.

Given you have concluded Joan Hope's backyard connected with and a result of Knights Templar activity, I gather the forum is in for a highly eccentric interpretation of Lisa's webpages.

Perhaps I'll dig out the official government (or was it the museum's) archeological report on the New Ross survey. I'm sure the motivation for their visit was out of pure concern she was not disturbing a native site...something like that.
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:00 pm

n4n224ccw wrote:
wayward wrote:
wayward wrote:(2) I don't think Joan Hope received proper credit by Scott Wolter during his History Channel program on the ancient foundation and well at New Ross.


While post Planter and Loyalist sites do show this action, the earlier French sites from the 1600s really suffer from this natural forest process. Suggesting Joan’s stones date to the 1300s and managed to avoid this natural scattering process is wishful thinking.

Back during the late 1980s I did read a reference to the early folks of Sherbrooke discovering a rye or barely field and a few apple trees. That certainly was interesting to read and definitely should not have been observed if they were the first folks to work the area. One author has even suggested the field naturally sowed and the orchard survived since the 1300s.




Who said the stone walls survived from the 1300s? I had said the site was taken down in the 16th century and by those who actually were involved with it.

Another factor involved that you seem to forget is the historical event known as the "Little Ice Age" a period of much colder temperatures in the North Atlantic regions between the 14th and 18th centurys which accounted for much slower tree growth. The most recent reconstruction shows the coldest period of the event to have been from about 1450 to 1700.

As for Joan's theorys, I don't exactly agree with all of her thoughts on the site, but she did bring it to the forefront.

I was at Port Royal a short while ago, a site that was first built in 1605 and I don't see where any serious natural forest process took place. In other words it doesn't look to me like there was much deforesting required to rebuild the site.

I believe that it was Nova Scotia Musuems that visited Joan's site, an organization that I have written to several times.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby wayward on Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:40 am

n4n224ccw wrote:

I doubt you have secret information, like so many others, for if you did then you'd have resources. With your resources you'd be here in NS with a Category C Archeological permit and exploring your theory on the ground, better yet, we'd be reading all about what you found or watching it on TV, rather than reading here on this forum a disjointed musings of alternate history .




I never claimed to have "secret" information, but I do have information that can be easily researched by anyone inclined to do so. The inspiration comes from an old Native American word "gottawanna". :wink:

btw, did you find proof yet of when the name "Charing Cross" arrived in the New Ross area?
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: Scott Wolter has it wrong

Postby n4n224ccw on Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:45 pm

wayward wrote:Who said the stone walls survived from the 1300s?


You and supporters who think those stones in the neat rows which Joan presented as either the top or base of the walls. Joan firstly and for a long time suggested those stones were the tops of the walls and for the entire 'castle' to have been back filled for the purpose of totally hiding the structure. For obvious reasons she changed her position to being the base of walls.

wayward wrote:I had said the site was taken down in the 16th century and by those who actually were involved with it.


I actually liked your notion of a 16th century event because it differed from the 17th century destruction during the Acadian conquest of 1654...that angle proposed by Joan was totally disproved.

I had to go back and read your opening post in the Charing Cross thread to recall your ideas.

wayward wrote:Another factor involved that you seem to forget is the historical event known as the "Little Ice Age" a period of much colder temperatures in the North Atlantic regions between the 14th and 18th centurys which accounted for much slower tree growth. The most recent reconstruction shows the coldest period of the event to have been from about 1450 to 1700.


Not even worth considering when speaking of effects on northern forests. The following link says it all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16608455

As you can read, growth rates of northern coniferous trees are a function of the length of day light rather than temperature which dispels previously held beliefs.

The chart at the following link is the temperature change you speak of....not that great of a decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

Considering NS is a good mixture of intermixed deciduous and coniferous trees, if anything, the slightly colder temperatures during those years would have gave advantage to the conifers....but this is the exact type of eccentric grabbing at straws one would need to have kept those stones in a tight pattern for a few hundred years.

wayward wrote:As for Joan's theorys, I don't exactly agree with all of her thoughts on the site, but she did bring it to the forefront.


I always like reading Joan's time line and sequence of events.....what extraordinary luck she possessed for having first met native boys in Shelburne who somehow knew and told of a 'little palace' (but not where) when no other recorded native legends speak to any such thing. After awhile they decided to visit New Ross as a possible place to live for her husband's work. While hubby is negotiating rent, Joan happens to look in the backyard and quickly determines through the snow covered ground that a castle once stood there.

What extraordinary luck indeed.

wayward wrote:I was at Port Royal a short while ago, a site that was first built in 1605 and I don't see where any serious natural forest process took place. In other words it doesn't look to me like there was much deforesting required to rebuild the site.


The natural forest action I speak of has to do when trees grow in, above and around structures build with loose stone and not the cutting down of trees by man for the purpose of building.

You may want to read about the events which lead to the historical reconstruction of Port Royal. You would not have observed any deforestation anyways, other than the farm land of the area.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/habi ... eisser.asp


wayward wrote:I never claimed to have "secret" information, but I do have information that can be easily researched by anyone inclined to do so. The inspiration comes from an old Native American word "gottawanna".


I will remind you of your post above,

wayward wrote:I do have information relative to this that I cannot share yet, a copout I know. but it is what it is.


If you can't share then it is a secret.


wayward wrote:btw, did you find proof yet of when the name "Charing Cross" arrived in the New Ross area?


Regardless of what real documents are provided or the lack of such a name in the historical record, property deeds, or correspondence which makes any such reference to a Charing Cross existing before Sherbrooke's grant as laughable...the realm of alternative speculation needs to prove their assertions.
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

PreviousNext

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /home/oakislan/public_html/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103