Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Here you go. Eyewitness account(s) that explain the "money pit" as a natural sink-hole. Case solved.

In 1911 an engineer, Captain Henry L. Bowdoin, who had done extensive borings on the island, concluded that the treasure was imaginary. He questioned the authenticity of various alleged findings (such as the cipher stone and piece of gold chain), and attributed the rest to natural phenomena (Bowdoin 1911). Subsequent skeptics have proposed that the legendary Money Pit was nothing more than a sinkhole caused by the ground settling over a void in the underlying rock (Atlantic 1965). The strata beneath Oak Island are basically limestone and anhydrite (Crooker 1978, 85; Blankenship 1999), which are associated with the formation of solution caverns and salt domes (Cavern 1960; Salt Dome 1960). The surface above caverns, as well as over faults and fissures, may be characterized by sinkholes.

Indeed, a sinkhole actually appeared on Oak Island in 1878. A woman named Sophia Sellers was plowing when the earth suddenly sank beneath her oxen. Ever afterward known as the “Cave-in Pit,” it was located just over a hundred yards east of the Money Pit and directly above the “flood tunnel” (O'Connor 1988, 51).

Geologist E. Rudolph Faribault found “numerous” sinkholes on the mainland opposite Oak Island, and in a geological report of 1911 concluded there was “strong evidence” to indicate that the purported artificial structures on the island were “really but natural sink holes and cavities.” Further evidence of caverns in the area came in 1975 when a sewage-disposal system was being established on the mainland. Approximately 3,000 feet north of the island, workmen excavating with heavy machinery broke through a rock layer and discovered a 52-foot-deep cavern below (Crooker 1993, 144). Fred Nolan insists that, earlier, in 1969, while drilling on Oak Island, Triton broke into a cavern near the fabled treasure shaft at a depth of 165 feet. “Blankenship and Tobias figured that the cavern was man-made,” said Nolan, “but it isn't, as far as I'm concerned” (Crooker 1993, 165). And Mark Finnan (1997, 111), writing of “the unique geological nature of Oak Island,” states as a fact that “naturally formed underground caverns are present in the island's bedrock.” These would account for the flood “booby-traps” that were supposedly placed to guard the “treasure” (Preston 1988, 63).

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/secrets_of_oak_island

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[b3y0nd3r]

Which "eyewitness" account was that? Had someone actually provided sworn testimony of something while under oath?

"Testimony" has a very specific definition - not the same as "I once heard someone say that they had a great uncle who claimed to have known someone who . . . "

Yes they did.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Link? Names?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Here you go. Eyewitness account(s) that explain the "money pit" as a natural sink-hole. Case solved.



https://www.csicop.org/si/show/secrets_of_oak_island

First your claim:

It was ONLY after Bowdoin ran out of money and couldn't raise anymore for HIS search did he claim the pit was a hoax and a natural sink hole. He purposely wrote that article in Collier's magazine in attempt to prevent Fredrick Blair from obtaining any shares and continuing to search for the treasure. "Bowdoin's arguments, which distorted the known facts, were answered point by point in a lengthy article(sic) by Blair that appeared in the Amherst Daily News of February 23, 1912."

As for my claim, I am working on a presentation. Be patient.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... How many dead-ends constitute a complete dead end?

Answer: Infinity. You would have to dig down to the magma of the earth's crust, for the entire circumference of the island, before anyone could ever say "It's a dead end". Otherwise: It's just a little more to the left. A little more to the right. A little deeper. But at no point is it ever "not there".

And then once you dug down to the center of the earth and didn't find it. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. That would merely mean that someone else found it previously, and took it to another spot on earth that you haven't dug at yet. And unless you can prove to the contrary (ie.: prove a negative), then ... by golly, the assertion remains true.

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.....

Ok, let's "try this out for size" with another legend :

"Due to the fact that no one has provided evidence to the contrary about Lochness Monster, we must consider eyewitness testimonies to be true"

Oh but if-only "personal testimony" were the end-all method to determining truth. Then life would be so much easier. There is "personal testimony" that people believe they were abducted by aliens. There is personal testimony that people saw Elvis alive. And there was "personal testimony" that the const. worker, in my example story, knew that gold had been found @ that sidewalk tearout. And in each and every case, there was simple innocuous explanations for the misunderstandings.

 

[Raparee]

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.

So let's move on and discuss who/how this was built.

The original story states that three boys saw some lights on OI, paddled over and dug a hole, etc, etc, etc. Facts are that all three people were full grown men, and at least two of them were landowners on Oak Island. If these basic facts of the original story are wrong, the rest of it has no credibility at all.

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

Nice post by Charlie and then a good comeback from beyond.... waiting anxiously for his rebuttal!

Gotta get me some popcorn!

This could be better than the show!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

First your claim:

It was ONLY after Bowdoin ran out of money and couldn't raise anymore for HIS search did he claim the pit was a hoax and a natural sink hole. He purposely wrote that article in Collier's magazine in attempt to prevent Fredrick Blair from obtaining any shares and continuing to search for the treasure. "Bowdoin's arguments, which distorted the known facts, were answered point by point in a lengthy article(sic) by Blair that appeared in the Amherst Daily News of February 23, 1912."

As for my claim, I am working on a presentation. Be patient.

So we have established that we can discount "first hand eyewitness accounts" as unreliable and potentially fabricated.

That will be useful in the future and a key tool for skeptical analysis. Thank you.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... It was ONLY after Bowdoin ran out of money and couldn't raise anymore for HIS search did he claim the pit was a hoax and a natural sink hole. He purposely wrote that article in Collier's magazine in attempt to prevent Fredrick Blair from obtaining any shares and continuing to search for the treasure. ....

b3y0nd3r, I admire your deep knowledge and fair shake on the topic here. Not only do you know the talking points of the "pro" points of view very well, but you can also rise the occasion to answer any of the "con" points. To squelch the link that Charlie gave. By explaining how there were "ulterior motives" @ those yester-year skeptical statements.

I have a possible push-back to the Blair "point by point" answers. But would have to study those two guy's writings, in depth, before sticking my neck out with the possibility that I'm thinking of.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

So we have established that we can discount "first hand eyewitness accounts" as unreliable and potentially fabricated.

That will be useful in the future and a key tool for skeptical analysis. Thank you.

Of course! I never said you couldn't as long as it is factual and not psycho-analysis.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.

So let's move on and discuss who/how this was built.

We may consider the eyewitness testimony to be true or not. "Must" no longer is applicable.

Back to examining evidence as available and remaining.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

We may consider the eyewitness testimony to be true or not. "Must" no longer is applicable.

Back to examining evidence as available and remaining.

I used must because, in the year I have been debating this, no one has provided anything to the contrary. I felt a year was enough time to debate the story, don't you?

Let me make myself clear, I don't want to be right, I want the truth. To me who is right and who is wrong IS NOT important. It is the truth that matters.

I guess you can say i'm 60/40 when it comes to OI with 60 in the believe column.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... in the year I have been debating this, no one has provided anything to the contrary.....

Huh ? I could point to 100s of post which have presented more plausible explanations. Oh sure, perhaps you don't believe they hold merit. Perhaps you call them "conjecture" and "speculation". But don't think for a moment that the skeptical side hasn't "provided anything to the contrary".

It's only a matter of you not accepting them as more plausible. And ... likewise, they don't consider the "treasure" conclusion to be more plausible either. So perhaps your statement would be better phrase like this :

" No one has provided anything that I consider to be meritorious to the contrary..."

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

No treasure. Proven by many. I'd say Dunfield did the best job of scraping away the surface and finding no evidence of treasure.

Unless old docks and the structures of prior searchers are your idea of treasure.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Treasure again. Just when I thought we were making progress.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Proven by many. I'd say Dunfield did the best job of scraping away the surface and finding no evidence of treasure....

No, that is not "finding no evidence of treasure". That is merely finding evidence that: 1) a little more to the right, 2) a little more to the left. 3) a little deeper. 4) someone else already found it in the early days, and no doubt retired to life of luxury with the riches.

But under no circumstance was, or is, there not a treasure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Treasure again. Just when I thought we were making progress.

b3y0nd3r : C'mon bro, admit that ... yes ... it's about "treasure". It is NOT about fibers, links, square nails, legends of boys & sink holes and winches, etc.... If it was REALLY all about those details, then ... heck ..... I can show you "fibers", "links", "square nails", "little boys", "sink holes", and "winches" ALL within a mile radius of my house in California. So ... really ..... you don't need to retreat to saying "It's not about treasure". It most certainly is.

If you persist in saying that it's not about treasure, and you don't believe any of those things points to treasure, fine. But let's be perfectly honest: We all know that each side IS INDEED talking about the prospects of treasure. After all, they call it the "money pit". Not the "boy's pit" or the "fiber pit", etc...

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I don't think anyone is on or watching Oak Island because it has interesting flora and fauna, or for vacation prospects as a site for a golf course and condominiums.

If not treasure . . . what?

Logging, fishing and agriculture was performed all around Mahone Bay. No surprise there.

Although I guess it was Templar logging, Templar fishing and Templar agriculture by default of being Oak Island.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don't think anyone is on or watching Oak Island because it has interesting flora and fauna, or for vacation prospects as a site for a golf course and condominiums.

If not treasure . . . what? ... .

Ah c'mon Charlie, you know they're watching the show for the fascinating story of fiber buoyancy science.

It's often referred to as "The Mystery of Oak Island". Ask yourself: What "mystery" are they talking about ? Well of COURSE it's the "mystery" of coconut fibers. NOT the possibility of treasure. Sheesskk.

 

[Carl-NC]

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.

So let's move on and discuss who/how this was built.

Which version of the original story do you consider to be true, and why do you reject all the other versions of the original story?

I expect that Daniel McGinnis/Donald MacInnes & Co. actually saw a depression, actually dug a hole, and actually found stone & wood debris in the hole. But accepting the "story" as largely true (even if the details are not) doesn't extrapolate to a buried treasure, any more than any of the other ground depressions in the area would. Beyond the original story, all we have are a lot of people doing a lot of digging, and finding a lot of nothing. And yet, it's time to discuss who built this and how? Who built what?

It was ONLY after Bowdoin ran out of money and couldn't raise anymore for HIS search did he claim the pit was a hoax and a natural sink hole.

Also corroborated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.