Feb 24, 2014, 12:15 AM
You nailed it. Well done!
Originally Posted by rowanns
This tells us a lot. I'd actually push the date back a century or two plausibly, but your date is much more probable.
Let's see who was surprised by this. Afterward, perhaps we'll do this some more with the other pieces of evidence.
Feb 24, 2014, 12:56 AM
I agree with just about everything you have said except you forget that many of us actually watched the show and could see the reaction of the guy that planted it.
Originally Posted by FinderKeeper
To think that the coin would be on the surface of a bog while all the other items have sunk to the bottom is completely backwards thinking.
Coins do not float, the bog would be an estuary if the road had not been put in place and would have been subject to storm surges over the hundreds of years breaking and eroding all evidence.
The road is recent in the last 200 or less years and has caused the bog to fill with muck and sediment.
Feb 24, 2014, 04:28 AM
I commonly have the same problem, have a good signal until I dig down and it would just disappear! Could be mineralization, coke, iron or even a small vain of flour gold?? Tannic acid is formed as a byproduct of decomposing vegetation. If there was any iron left at the fire pit, would give a mineralized false signal!
Anyone pan for gold?
Finderskeepers , Find the stone, there must be some traceability.
Feb 24, 2014, 06:40 AM
There's still the issue of the carbon dating of the coconut fibres however Dave. I tend to side with this evidence as it is more concrete in my mind than a deciphered inscription that may not be correct.
Originally Posted by Dave Rishar
Feb 24, 2014, 08:30 AM
The Golden Horns of Gallehus, melted down, really? Does anyone know what the Danish " Worisk " means? It could be a very important clue I have discovered.
Feb 24, 2014, 08:49 AM
I am new to this forum but not to history/treasure/adventure. I ended up here via searching for others reactions on the show and I think, although the show was poor at best, it will work wonders for generating traffic to this forum.
I decided to post because a few things about oak island really strike me as interesting as well as the people who are intrigued by this mystery.
First and foremost, I understand as well as anyone when chasing a treasure one needs an open mind and to suspend disbelief in alot of situations. If they didn't they would follow the traditional history of the area and probably never ever find anything. However as a historian/alternative historian, I do believe that skepticism still need to be used as tools. I often found anomalous pieces of information when researching and start trying to build upon it. But everything has to be reasonably internally consistent given the information available. When you read tales of a pirate in a nearby cove, which also has a oral tradition of pirate 'x' burying a treasure and then historical record of a death or arrest I think these are great signs. However, oak island to me is not that story.
All of the main Oak Island 'evidence' or 'legend' is internally inconsistent and folklore. I'm not saying some of it isn't true I'm just saying if you take that 'evidence' to be true your standards are low at best. This is not meant as an insult but rather as a injection of objectiveness from a guy who loves tall tales and adventure. For example, in my search for mystery I find one generally needs a good idea of the who. The who in this case is a little shaky. Templars? I've seen people here use rune stone, shakespeare and various other things to tie templars in but even if they are right in their interpretation of info truthfully and objectively it seems obvious that the 'evidence' doesn't really make a strong case for oak island if it even made a strong case for everything else. It is sort of a "well it could be oak island" without any specific reason for it. Next is pirates, in this area treasure troves are usually pirates. Pirates for this location is possible, though the supposed nature of the tunnels, depths etc. would seem to rule it out. Pirates buried usually because they were being pursued or had other immediate risks of capture or death. Although clay, to construct this system seems outlandish. They would have buried it in an attempt to hide it until they could come get it but such a complex system would make that very difficult. It would also make the original construction difficult and time consuming. I won't rule it out. But ruling it in is a leap of faith. Also, as a slight detour the pirates would have to be coming from further south for the story to work. Most pirates in this area pillaged stuff in this area - which was treasure troves and huge dollar values of furs, fish and salt. Not really treasures you would stash or that would have value today in their current state.
Secondly, the other 'evidence' is really weak. If you don't know the 'who' the only way to find a treasure to find the location and work backwards to find the who. Most evidence of the location is blatantly false, or at best is wishful thinking. Dave Rishar has beaten most of it apart but I will quickly run through it. The original stories about the three boys is folklore even if true. The system purported being built by the treasure hiders could not have been done while island was inhabited without notice. A block and tackle hanging over hole is nonsensical. If it was there, there is no treasure or at least not the nature people speak of. They wouldn't leave a block and tackle after the work to hide the treasure and even if they did they would have had to stash it around then (1795) as it wouldn't have lasted long just hanging there. As they couldn't have done it then (not the way people say they did anyways) do to the construction requirements then the block and tackle is untrue or red herring. The gold chain fragments have had varying descriptions , I am not sure they even still exist but even if they do while interesting is irrelavant. Same for the tools recovered. They are probably from previous attempts but even if they are not they are not unique enough to prove otherwise. The famous cipher rock is gone and there is no proof it ever existed. This is not me being negative its true. It doesn't exist and no cpies were made of it that are known ( I think) and none are verifiable if they were. The inscription doesn't make sense even if it is true. Flood tunnels are unproven to even exist. Pyramid swamp is created in modern times by road but is not a perfect triangle nor any different than swamps lots of places. Not saying its not the 'key' but why? Its not unique UNLESS you agree the island already has treasure then who knows. The platforms of oak is legend. Even the legend it comes from says there was an shallow 'platform' of oak (realistically some oak wood found) and appearance of intervals of ten feet. Long way from oak platforms every ten feet. Video of chests and dead bodies is inconclusive at best. And so on and so on and so on. IF the evidence was actually real there would be a case, but most of it if real is unprovable at this time to have existed.
I could go on and on but I want to keep this reasonable. The point is the story that puts treasure there is based on very little to nothing. Or more importantly based on the same thing every treasure story in every coastal community is. So if you listen to this one you should listen to them all. The evidence constantly used to prove something is there is all unerfiable at best and most of it is not consistent with itself (thats my biggest problem, it doesn't even fit each other) .So why do people dig there and stay obsessed? Because others have. The more people dig and spend money and make shows the more creditable it becomes. But thats not good logic for true treasure hunters is it?
Finally I would like to thank Dave Rishar for his clarity and I would like to question those who have taken it personally. I have not read his tone as condescending but rather a factual (maybe slightly pompous ). If people can present theories saying its an alien remoleculizar than he can present a viewpoint that says its not real. I personally am the fringe lunatic of my social group when it comes to alternative history. MY well educated friends batter me with similar arguments to Dave's. Thats a good thing. If you are right his arguments can only help you refine your idea. I don't believe he, nor I, are trying to be skeptics and rain on peoples parade. He has given enough effort to prove he likes treasures and desperately at hart wants to believe. As do I. But there has to be something worth believing in. Treasure stories exist everywhere and truthfully alot of them are more plausible than this. The effort should be put there.
Feb 24, 2014, 06:33 PM
Thanks for answering my questions....although I disagree with the same type of stones from sites fairly close together (only 18 miles) being a huge discovery.
I have way more respect for you stating your opinion instead of hiding behind not being allowed too by the History Channel.
Feb 24, 2014, 08:53 PM
Nice subjective writeup.
Originally Posted by Snipes
Feb 24, 2014, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by burlbark
I agree with you. It did look like it was planted BUT that may not be the case. What if they found the coin and the camers where off, the film crew would have them redo the find. OR they did put a lot of mud and stones on the bog and suppose they did find it in the mud and again they had to redo the find. What happen and how the film crew show it could be different. On a film set we have to do the shot many times before the film crew thinks they have it right. In most cases the film company gets it their way and we have no say. I can only guess what happen when they showed the coin. Was it planted Marty said no and thats where I am. I am sure when they jumped in the water and thought they hit it big, the film crew had a lot to do with this part to. Marty and Rick did a good job , its the way the film crew showed them that looks bad. I've been there and done that.
Feb 24, 2014, 09:34 PM
The stones were at our site in New Ross and we found them in Gold River that runs from New Ross to Oak Island so any thing is possible. We had the stones checked out and still no one knows why they show up as gold on our equipment. The ice age did move a lot of dirt , stones and clay. When Marty checks out his stones and if they are Magnetite then thats why they had gold readings.
Originally Posted by uzzard
Feb 25, 2014, 12:13 AM
I think the first order of business would be to use the ground penetrating radar as you've suggested on the swamp area to see if there's anything there that would suggest that the swamp should be further investigated. Would the ground penetrating radar work in water? If so, perhaps it should be used in Smith's Cove to see if the drains on the artificial beach can be detected.
Originally Posted by FinderKeeper
I haven't re-watched any of the 5 episodes from season one, but if I recall it was the second episode in which they lowered a camera into 10X and got some pictures of what was at the bottom of it. Dan Blankenship has always maintained that he saw what appeared to be a hand, a dead body, and a chest at bottom of 10X when he dove in it. They were excited and rushed to Dan Blankenship's home to show him the film and then found that the camera had stopped recording what they were seeing on the monitor. They need to further explore that and either confirm or refute that there's anything at the bottom of 10X.
As I mentioned before, if there's any oak trees still surviving on Oak Island, I would have a botanist check them out to see if the trees can be identified as to what species of oak they are and their age. Once the species is known it would narrow down what countries of the world the trees are native to. If the time frame for when they were planted could be determined, that might be a clue as to who planted them.
I think Nolan's Cross needs to be further investigated and perhaps the ground penetrating radar used in that area too.
At some time in the past one group of searchers put dye in the money pit and observed where it came out in Smith's Cove and also on another side of the island. I think it would be a good idea to do the dye test and have observers stationed to film and document the results.
Leaving no stone unturned...........I've also heard a story that the pilot of a low flying airplane with sonar on it said that the other end of the island showed something on the radar. That might be another area to check out with radar.
I think any further digging or searching will be determined by the results of the radar and dye.
Feb 25, 2014, 05:53 AM
Good explaination of the realities of television filming, FindersKeepers.
Didn't Triton put divers in 10-X a few times?
Feb 25, 2014, 02:05 PM
all jeff's also. Ya think that I am willing to go out on a limb alone??
Where is my coffee to redeem yourself ??
Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to live, not live to exist"
Feb 25, 2014, 02:07 PM
all jeff's also. Ya think that I am willing to go out on a limb alone?? Where is my coffee to redeem yourself ??
Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to live, not live to exist"
Feb 25, 2014, 02:15 PM
carbon test on the wood supposedly found in the shaft - if it still exists
"I exist to live, not live to exist"
By birdpointgriswold in forum North American Indian Artifacts
Last Post: Nov 14, 2012, 11:34 PM
By Larsmed in forum Shipwrecks
Last Post: May 18, 2007, 09:24 PM
By porchdawg in forum TV Shows
Last Post: Apr 19, 2007, 10:45 PM
By davel in forum Cache Hunting
Last Post: Apr 12, 2007, 04:26 PM
By TreasureTales in forum TV Shows
Last Post: Jan 03, 2007, 11:57 PM
Search tags for this page
curse of oak island
history channel oak island
history channel oak island documentary
history channel oak island show
oak island 2014
oak island history channel
oak island treasure 2014
oak island treasure history channel
oak island tv show
the curse of oak island
Click on a term to search for related topics.