Oak Island Factual (proven/documented) Information

[ECS]

... Keep in mind now a days we all have seen at least in pictures hundreds of sinkholes.
In 1795 they probably had never seen one...even if it didn't have the tackle block hanging from the tree...

Come to Florida and you can see hundreds of sinkholes live and in person.
Most famous is the DEVIL's MILLHOPPER, north of Gainesville, which has a tropical rain forest at the bottom, but, alas, no treasure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

There is also a story out there that one of Captain Kidds men told Mcginnis that they buried treasure on Oak Island, so if that is true and he did find an depression on an island that had no other depressions on it I can see how he thought he might be on to something.. Keep in mind now a days we all have seen atleast in pictures hundreds of sinkholes. In 1795 they probably had never seen one...even if it didn't have the tackle block hanging from the tree...

Capt'n Kidd was captured in 1699. McGinnis was (allegedly) born in 1778. That was some old pirate if he served with Kidd but spoke to McGinnis. Assuming the pirate was 17 when he signed on (Kidd's last voyage started in 1696) and he told a five year old McGinnis that's still 104 years. Possible, I suppose, but one wonders why a pirate would know of such treasure but not just go recover it himself.

 

[n2mini]

I'm just saying that is one of the stories. Believe it or not is up to you...

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

but weren't you yesterday making the post that the rock was supposedly made of Basalt and would have been so hard that any carvings on it wouldn't have been rubbed off? So which was it no rock ever or so hard any carving on it would not be rubbed off..

I think this is where you are confused.

No stone with cryptic writings was ever found in the fictional money pit. The stone story was a hoax just as with the money pit.

Some of the hoaxers carved their own fake stone and after investors figured out it was a fake, they stopped investing and the hoaxers threw the stone away.

Yes....there was a fake stone if that better fits your narrative that a stone existed...

 

[n2mini]

fake or not. You can't have a stone that you can carve into yet it is so hard you can't beat/rub off those same carvings.. That is the comment that was made that I was questioning..

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

586 posts and still not one shred of factual evidence......

 

[DaveVanP]

but weren't you yesterday making the post that the rock was supposedly made of Basalt and would have been so hard that any carvings on it wouldn't have been rubbed off? So which was it no rock ever or so hard any carving on it would not be rubbed off..

Stating what a witness CLAIMED he saw, and expressing doubt as to whether any such stone existed do not conflict each other. IF there ever was such a stone, and IF it was as witnesses had described, then it would NOT have "worn smooth" by the reported use, so any smooth stone being described as being the "90 foot stone" is obviously fake...and since SO MANY of the stories don't agree, or contradict each other, how can it be determined if ANY are true. Once AGAIN, - I am NOT claiming the stone "never existed" - I am only pointing out there is NO "PROOF" (or credible evidence) that it DID - just "campfire stories", basically.

 

[DaveVanP]

fake or not. You can't have a stone that you can carve into yet it is so hard you can't beat/rub off those same carvings.. That is the comment that was made that I was questioning..

Do you have experience in such matters? I have recovered grave headstones of granite and marble from rivers where they had been exposed to water erosion and sand/gravel abrasion for over 150 years - still legible, unlike the "90 foot stone" which was basically used as an "ironing board" for wet leather for about 40 years, if you go by the legend. Besides - any leatherworker would want a SMOOTH, FLAT surface to work his leather, not one covered in incised writing - they would have used another surface - or had the "inscribed" surface planed/ground flat by the local stonemason/cutter.

 

[n2mini]

Now you have clarified your stance. I kinda figured as much but wanted you to say it so going forward you say it that way as to not confuse new people coming in here and thinking that everything you and singlestack and others say are facts when their not always. It's a matter of how ya'll word things. One of ya'll complianed that I say maybe this and maybe that but that is how it is. We don't know much of anything as a fact, regardless of how bad any of us want to believe it to be... If you don't believe any story of a stone being found in the pit that's fine but say it that way. So I'm guessing you and singlestack do believe there was a stone being shown around that apparently had some carvings on it but you think it is a fake. Fine. At this point no one knows what it was made out of but I have a hard time believing that if it had carvings in it that a leathersmith and or whoever used it for pounding stuff could not have eventually ground it smooth... 30-40 years is a lot of pounding. Big difference in a hammer beating something vs water running over it...

 

[gazzahk]

n2mini you keep claiming that "no one knows" but there is documented source material as quoted in this article

https://web.archive.org/web/2020121...lost-90-foot-stone-part-2-in-a-special-series


That evidence does not support any clearly carved inscription on the stone.

We do know that the only report of that claimed carved inscription was on a different size stone from the documented evidence reported earlier. This is the only ever reference to anyone seeing that code was made in 1893 on a different size stone (3 feet long) from all earlier reports in a prospectus for raising money for a treasure search.

Read the documented evidence and this shows that the alleged in scripted stone was a fake.

The first written reports of the stone were not even published until 60 years after it was "allegedly" found (this has reports of the stone being 2 feet long)

Once again to claim no one knows this is just to ignore the historic documents.

You are free to believe what you wish but read the source material before making claims about what is known and not known is my advice...

 

[n2mini]

Heck by reading the first 50-100 years of that story it sure seems to be real. Seems there was quite a few people who saw it and handled it based on your article find.... and some of those people had heard the same stories of it. Like it being part of a fireplace that they may or may not be able to get to to retrieve it easily.. How do you not believe the first part of that article. You know how stories change over years either by lack of memory, or little embellishments along the way, as the story gets passed along...
This article even mentions them finding "markings" every 10' in what became known as The Money Pit..

 

[ECS]

... You know how stories change over years either by lack of memory, or little embellishments along the way, as the story gets passed along...

Yes we do, and almost ALL of what is claimed to be true concerning the pit on Oak Island is derived from 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay that keeps being repeated.
...and no matter how many times repeated, it DOES NOT make it true.

 

[n2mini]

I'm not saying it is true. I find it hard to believe anyone burying a treasure would leave a stone like in this story but his article makes a strong case for it being true more so then not. The article is actually made up of lots of different tells from people and other articles that had been written at the time... That whole thing is not 1 old mans memory...

 

[Al D]

This whole argument is moot IMO, because of zero evidence.
almost like arguing if the Kensington rune stone was a hoax, at least that stone actually exist.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

I'm not saying it is true. I find it hard to believe anyone burying a treasure would leave a stone like in this story but his article makes a strong case for it being true more so then not. The article is actually made up of lots of different tells from people and other articles that had been written at the time... That whole thing is not 1 old mans memory...

Since the stone in question was a fake carved by folks looking to fleece people out of money, why is the fake stone relevant?

 

[n2mini]

a fake stone is not, but by reading gazzahk's link it reads as if the stone is/was real. Atleast for the first while of the articles... It's only in the early 1900's does it all get hokie.. based on this article. As with everything OI there are plenty of other stories and tells about it. If you were new to the OI/MP story and just reading what you can find to learn about it all and came across gazzahk's article it sounds pretty convincing for the first while as I said till the 1900's..

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

The 90' stone is as fake as the curse of oak island show...

 

[ECS]

Heck by reading the first 50-100 years of that story it sure seems to be real.
Seems there was quite a few people who saw it and handled it based on your article find.... and some of those people had heard the same stories of it...

It states that Vaughn told Simeon Lyons of Onslow, seven years after 1803 about the 9 foot stone. Lyons never saw the stone.
The first public mention of the 9 foot stone appeared after the Onslow Company was formed, when Jotham B McCully wrote a June 2,1862 rebuttal letter to an October 1861 article in the LIVERPOOL TRANSCRIPT.
Once again, McCully never saw this 90foot stone, just repeated hearsay that he heard.
No where up until 1862 is there a mention of "quite a few people who saw and handled" this alleged 90foot stone, BUT after this letter, the stories of this stone began to grow into legend.

 

[ECS]

a fake stone is not, but by reading gazzahk's link it reads as if the stone is/was real.
At least for the first while of the articles... It's only in the early 1900's does it all get hokie.. based on this article.
As with everything OI there are plenty of other stories and tells about it...

What came first, n2mini my friend, the story of the stone, or a stone that was produced to fit the story?

 

[will7782]

This whole argument is moot IMO, because of zero evidence.
almost like arguing if the Kensington rune stone was a hoax, at least that stone actually exist.

finally a naysayer admits that it is their OPINION that they are expressing. not fact, merely an opinion.