A Parallel Search - or the Same?

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I’ve been criticised here for quoting from books predating The Curse of Oak Island because it's claimed that the work of the Laginas constitutes the only valid input worthy of consideration. Some here clearly believe that a literature review of a subject is of no value whatsoever.

However, extensive reading on and around the subject does provide a sound base for a better understand of current activity. It also provides a fair amount of information that The Curse of Oak Island hasn’t even touched upon.

Furthermore, some information that might have a bearing on the Oak Island quest tends to be dismissed as nonsense because it’s been presented by apparent wackos and crazies without the critics having bothered to track down its actual origins. To be fair, this is probably not achievable now, but it was possible when I began my research into the Oak Island mystery in the 1970s when some of the people involved were still alive.

One of the sources of this material enters the arena in the late 1920s and was accessible, to my knowledge, until the early 1980s. The information that surfaced was leaked from a file in private hands. This had been assembled during the 19th century and was a collection of documents pertaining to a treasure quest by prominent people in the late 18th century.

The copying and use of the leaked material by people with their own agendas created something of a confusion. This was not surprising, because even the owners of the file were unsure of the location of the island upon which the treasure had been concealed. In fact, they believed that there were several treasures because the file contained several outlines of the same island but with different instructions. They tended to believe that the island, or perhaps one of several islands, was in the Pacific - potentially Juan Fernandez.

I trust that this is starting to ring bells. Some of the leaked material came into the hands of a somewhat eccentric author, Harold T. Wilkins, who wrongly assumed that a Captain Kidd referenced in the file was the notorious pirate William Kidd. Unfortunately, Wilkins entirely misinterpreted the material he held, essentially three maps and some jotted notes, because he lacked context.

It should by now be appreciated that these leaked documents spawned the Palmer-Kidd maps and the Wilkins-Kidd maps. Wilkins believed that Palmer’s island was in the China Sea, but in 1937 became aware of the identity of the island associated with the maps he held when he was visited by Gilbert Hedden. After publication of the 1939 article in The Saturday Evening Post he was approached by Canadian prospector Patrick Nolan and introduced to Herman Westhaver in Nova Scotia.

This resulted in the publication in 1947 of a book concerning another treasure hunt in Nova Scotia, though this may well have merged with, or been confused with, documentation pertaining to Oak Island. In the event that this parallel search and its affinities with Oak Island might be of interest, information will be provided in a further post.

I should note that some 40 years ago I spoke to two people claiming to own portions of the file and saw some of the original material. I also hold a large portion of Harold Wilkins’ files and those of Rupert Furneaux who researched and wrote on the Oak Island mystery linking it with the so-called Kidd maps of both Wilkins and Palmer. He, too, appears to have been aware of a possible link between them, and their likely true association with Oak Island, but although he approached Wilkins he failed to get him to reveal their background (this is known from correspondence in their files).
 

gazzahk

Bronze Member
Nov 14, 2015
1,654
2,399
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I’ve been criticised here for quoting from books predating The Curse of Oak Island because it's claimed that the work of the Laginas constitutes the only valid input worthy of consideration. Some here clearly believe that a literature review of a subject is of no value whatsoever.
I have never seen anyone on this board claim that.

In fact I would say that the opposite is true. There are very few posters that believe the Laginas are being truthful and this forum has seen pretty much all the historical information discussed extensively.

The biggest crime of the Laginas is they have purchased the best website that used to have an excellent collection of historic well documented research on Oak Island and removed all the documentation and articles. More recently they have even blocked the historic information from the Internet archive. This behaviour is contemptable in my view as the true history of Oak Island is now much more difficult to find

It is so wrong by he Laginas claim to be "seeking the truth" but have then gone out and spent money covering up the truth..
 
Last edited:
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
I have never seen anyone on this board claim that.

In fact I would say that the opposite is true. There are very few posters that believe the Laginas are being truthful and this forum has seen pretty much all the historical information discussed extensively.

The biggest crime of the Laginas is they have purchased the best website that used to have an excellent collection of historic well documented research on Oak Island and removed all the documentation and articles. More recently they have even blocked the historic information from the Internet archive. This behaviour is contemptable in my view as the true history of Oak Island is now much more difficult to find

It is so wrong by he Laginas claim to be "seeking the truth" but have then gone out and spent money covering up the truth..
Then perhaps you haven't read all the posts, and I'd add that 'pretty much all' is not the same as 'all'. However, if you consider that there's nothing to add to what's been said then I'll happily stop at this point.

I can't comment on the motives of the Laginas, or their 'crimes', but I know from personal experience that they're very selective about what they choose to hear. However, much of what they might have missed is likely to be discussed here, which I feel is a plus for the forum.
 

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
Staff member
Jul 27, 2006
45,692
47,747
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Then perhaps you haven't read all the posts, and I'd add that 'pretty much all' is not the same as 'all'. However, if you consider that there's nothing to add to what's been said then I'll happily stop at this point.

I can't comment on the motives of the Laginas, or their 'crimes', but I know from personal experience that they're very selective about what they choose to hear. However, much of what they might have missed is likely to be discussed here, which I feel is a plus for the forum.
It's a TV show......
 

Charlie P. (NY)

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2006
12,879
16,766
South Central Upstate NY in the foothills of the h
Detector(s) used
Minelab Musketeer Advantage Pro w/8" & 10" DD coils/Fisher F75se(Upgraded to LTD2) w/11" DD, 6.5" concentric & 9.5" NEL Sharpshooter DD coils/Sunray FX-1 Probe & F-Point/Black Widows/Rattler headphone
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
I've only seen the garbage History Channel show, the 1979 Leonard Nimoy "In Search Of" telecast and the 1965 Reader's Digest artical on the Oak Island legend. Maybe a resturant placemat as well. The latter was the best presentation.

Rubbish. All of it.
 

Ocean7

Bronze Member
Apr 15, 2004
1,554
822
SE, PA
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Detector(s) used
Minelab Explorer II
Garrett MASTER HUNTER 7
Garrett ADS DEEPSEEKER
Compass X100
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
groans - this subject has been beaten to death on this site. Most people are bored to death of the never ending supply of this fabled treasure. It has spawned fights, arguments, and people being banned on this site. If in 9 seasons, the War room at Oak Island hasn't covered just about every 'theory' under the sun - it would be quite surprising. Certainly on this site even more possibilities have been covered. But like all treasures that do not exist, or are long gone, or will never be found - there's always somebody who thinks they have solved the mystery. Unfortunately, it's story has grown quite tiresome. Just look at the top 10 posts on Oak Island on this site. The posts and replies speak for themselves. I'd be very surprised if there is anything really new on the subject, and like all these tales - people just tire of them, tune out, and realize it sells books, magazines, newspapers, and TV 'reality' shows. I don't believe any of it now and agree with the 3 responders above me. Good Luck!
 
Last edited:
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
I fully understand the doubts, even the despondency, but what I don’t understand is people declaring to be fact that which they cannot possibly know to be fact. I wouldn’t dream of declaring that there ever was a treasure on Oak Island, but people find it easy to declare that they know for a fact that there wasn’t.

Just as I can’t prove that there was a treasure on Oak Island, it would be extremely difficult and totally impracticable to try to prove that there wasn’t. If there had been a treasure that was later removed then it might very well be impossible to prove this.

People here are falling into the trap of declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is not necessarily so. Ask any archaeologist. What can be stated as a fact is that there is as yet no demonstrable historical or archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis that there ever was a treasure on Oak Island. This doesn’t prove that there wasn’t.

That there is a treasure, that there never was a treasure, or that there was and it’s been removed are all hypotheses - guesses. None are proven fact and should not be declared to be. The only hypothesis that could reasonably be tested would be the first, and finding a treasure would disprove the others. However, that would require looking for evidence - which is what the Laginas are doing on the island and what some here are saying is nonsensical because they know for a fact what the answer actually is, or isn’t.

It may be your view that this is currently proving a waste of time, money and effort - and I’d agree with that - but the real problem is that they’re documenting the lack of results and presenting it as entertainment. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong to be looking.

It’s being said that because the forum has debated this topic almost to death that there’s nothing more to be discussed and nothing more to be found. Refusing to look at potential evidence because you’ve decided what the answer is without doing so is to be deprecated in the justice system just as it is here. When such a view prevails the result is what we see on the forum - prejudice and an indifference to revealing a potential truth. Truth won’t be discovered by deciding that there’s no point in looking for it.

By all means decide not to look, but why do we have to have these persistent declarations, akin to trolling, that it’s senseless to do so because proof is lacking? I chose to look knowing full well that it could have been a waste of time, but I did so because I hoped that I might uncover the background, the history, to what had taken place - that is, to discover that which was then unknown. Why is documentary research considered a waste of time just because you don’t like the results?

I’m being told that what I discovered some forty years ago is nonsense because you’ve decided that you know it is without having seen the material and without having objectively explored its implications. Hence, I can easily imagine the subjectivity and bias with which the topic was previously discussed.
 

stoneshirt

Sr. Member
May 3, 2003
299
148
Santa Marta de Magdalena,Colombia
I fully understand the doubts, even the despondency, but what I don’t understand is people declaring to be fact that which they cannot possibly know to be fact. I wouldn’t dream of declaring that there ever was a treasure on Oak Island, but people find it easy to declare that they know for a fact that there wasn’t.

Just as I can’t prove that there was a treasure on Oak Island, it would be extremely difficult and totally impracticable to try to prove that there wasn’t. If there had been a treasure that was later removed then it might very well be impossible to prove this.

People here are falling into the trap of declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is not necessarily so. Ask any archaeologist. What can be stated as a fact is that there is as yet no demonstrable historical or archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis that there ever was a treasure on Oak Island. This doesn’t prove that there wasn’t.

That there is a treasure, that there never was a treasure, or that there was and it’s been removed are all hypotheses - guesses. None are proven fact and should not be declared to be. The only hypothesis that could reasonably be tested would be the first, and finding a treasure would disprove the others. However, that would require looking for evidence - which is what the Laginas are doing on the island and what some here are saying is nonsensical because they know for a fact what the answer actually is, or isn’t.

It may be your view that this is currently proving a waste of time, money and effort - and I’d agree with that - but the real problem is that they’re documenting the lack of results and presenting it as entertainment. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong to be looking.

It’s being said that because the forum has debated this topic almost to death that there’s nothing more to be discussed and nothing more to be found. Refusing to look at potential evidence because you’ve decided what the answer is without doing so is to be deprecated in the justice system just as it is here. When such a view prevails the result is what we see on the forum - prejudice and an indifference to revealing a potential truth. Truth won’t be discovered by deciding that there’s no point in looking for it.

By all means decide not to look, but why do we have to have these persistent declarations, akin to trolling, that it’s senseless to do so because proof is lacking? I chose to look knowing full well that it could have been a waste of time, but I did so because I hoped that I might uncover the background, the history, to what had taken place - that is, to discover that which was then unknown. Why is documentary research considered a waste of time just because you don’t like the results?

I’m being told that what I discovered some forty years ago is nonsense because you’ve decided that you know it is without having seen the material and without having objectively explored its implications. Hence, I can easily imagine the subjectivity and bias with which the topic was previously discussed.
Well said.
 

Charlie P. (NY)

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2006
12,879
16,766
South Central Upstate NY in the foothills of the h
Detector(s) used
Minelab Musketeer Advantage Pro w/8" & 10" DD coils/Fisher F75se(Upgraded to LTD2) w/11" DD, 6.5" concentric & 9.5" NEL Sharpshooter DD coils/Sunray FX-1 Probe & F-Point/Black Widows/Rattler headphone
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
But the fact still remains that no evidence in support of a once or present treasure on Oak Island has been presented in decades and centuries of searching. Sure, it may be there. Elvis may be alive and unicorns may poop peach sherbet. One way to prove it.
 
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
The lack if evidence is a fair reason to consider the hypothesis that there’s no treasure on Oak Island. However, it doesn’t prove that this is so. Again, you’d be declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Note that it would be easier to test whether Elvis is dead rather than that he’s alive, just as it would be easier to test that a treasure exists on Oak island rather than that it doesn’t. I suggest that the pooping of unicorns may be a barren hypothesis - that is, it can’t be tested.
 

gazzahk

Bronze Member
Nov 14, 2015
1,654
2,399
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
The lack if evidence is a fair reason to consider the hypothesis that there’s no treasure on Oak Island. However, it doesn’t prove that this is so. Again, you’d be declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
As discussed here many times you cannot prove a negative like no treasure on OI. That does not support a hypothesis that there is a treasure there.

No evidence of treasure has ever been found. Therefore there is no reason to assume a treasure may exist (or no reason that it is more or less likely than on any other island in the area). However it has been proved that no treasure exists in the area of the money pit as 100s of shafts/holes have been dug and no evidence of treasure found. If there was a large hoard of treasure then all the holes that have been sunk would of found evidence of it.

To simply imply that because something cannot be proved not to exist supports the assumption of existence is absurd...
 
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #12
You seem to be putting words into my mouth that I don’t recall having said. In a previous post I observed, “Just as I can’t prove that there was a treasure on Oak Island, it would be extremely difficult and totally impracticable to try to prove that there wasn’t.” That’s because I appreciate that while it might be thought that a negative hypothesis might be testable (for instance, dig out the entire island to some 200 feet) in reality it can’t.

After years of no results, it may well strike people that there is no treasure, and this might potentially emerge as the alternative hypothesis to the suggestion that there is. In my view, an alternative hypothesis is still a hypothesis.

As for, “to simply imply that because something cannot be proved not to exist supports the assumption of existence is absurd”, I’d entirely agree with you , but I don’t recall having said this or even implied it. I take it that this is a general observation.
 

gazzahk

Bronze Member
Nov 14, 2015
1,654
2,399
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
You seem to be putting words into my mouth that I don’t recall having said. In a previous post I observed, “Just as I can’t prove that there was a treasure on Oak Island, it would be extremely difficult and totally impracticable to try to prove that there wasn’t.”

After years of no results, it may well strike people that there is no treasure, and this might potentially emerge as the alternative hypothesis to the suggestion that there is. In my view, an alternative hypothesis is still a hypothesis.
But the legend is not about a treasure being buried "somewhere" on Oak Island. The legend is that there is a treasure buried in the Money pit. That whole area has be dug or drilled to 200+ feet and no evidence of treasure found.

Therefore it is not a hypothesis it is a proven fact. No treasure hoard is buried in the money pit area of oak Island...

The Laginas imply that the location of the money pit is "unknown" this is not true. It is only the exact location of the pit that is unknown (I am not implying that you believe this). The general area of the pit is well documented.

It was never my intention of seeming to put "words in your mouth". I apologise if my previous post gave that impression. It was unintentional.
 

Ocean7

Bronze Member
Apr 15, 2004
1,554
822
SE, PA
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Detector(s) used
Minelab Explorer II
Garrett MASTER HUNTER 7
Garrett ADS DEEPSEEKER
Compass X100
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
the dinosaurs are extinct because they all died. This tale is a dinosaur. You sound an awful lot like someone else on here that just likes to argue about Oak Island with an obsession that just won't quit. If you know where this treasure is - go find it, or contact Rick and Marty to pontificate your research evidence. Or write your book or make your movie - if that is your end objective. Conjecture is convenient as connecting dots or events that have no connection. But if you expect to convince the majority of real treasure hunters who have followed this from day one - that you have the magical answer to the puzzle - you are quite mistaken. You might as well be walking on the sun. We don't have to accept or believe anything until proven! "No evidence of treasure has ever been found."
 

petetherocker

Full Member
Jan 20, 2015
143
163
Canada
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
as others as have said, "you cannot prove a negative"...

If I believe in flying, purple and spotted elephants, the 'burden of proof' lies with me making the claim, not with those trying to prove they don't.....

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.


It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
 
Last edited:
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #16
But the legend is not about a treasure being buried "somewhere" on Oak Island. The legend is that there is a treasure buried in the Money pit. That whole area has be dug or drilled to 200+ feet and no evidence of treasure found.

Therefore it is not a hypothesis it is a proven fact. No treasure hoard is buried in the money pit area of oak Island...

The Laginas imply that the location of the money pit is "unknown" this is not true. It is only the exact location of the pit that is unknown (I am not implying that you believe this). The general area of the pit is well documented.

It was never my intention of seeming to put "words in your mouth". I apologise if my previous post gave that impression. It was unintentional.
I can sympathise, but I’m not sure I can agree wholeheartedly. The original hypothesis formulated by the discoverers was, “that there is a treasure in the Money Pit”, and it seems to me that the Laginas are continuing to test this hypothesis.

However, the area they’re looking in is an absolute mess and one must wonder why they hope to find a treasure in the vicinity when, had there been one, it may have broken up and dispersed. This could be the reason why they’re not finding anything. It’s not that the treasure’s not there, it’s just that it’s too deep, too fragmented and beyond the area they’re investigating. Nevertheless, they cling to the hope that there’s perhaps a vault if not a side chamber in order to avoid thinking this way.

It’s my view that one should hope that if there ever was a treasure on the island, and it’s still there, that it’s somewhere else. As there’s a heck of a lot of elsewhere on the island then the hope would be that the location was documented and the expectation might be that such documentation would be cryptic.

Hence, my thought is that there might be order to the placing of the ground markers (the rocks and triangles) and that such cryptic instructions would be applied to them to identify the spot. I feel that it is possible to work out the ground plan and identify what the cryptic instructions mean.

However, I hit problems because, as in this thread, people have decided that they know this is wrong because, for example, they claim to know that the treasure legend is a hoax and that, as no treasure has yet been found, they also know for a fact that there never was one.

We should be careful about what we decide we know and why we decide we know it.
 
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #17
the dinosaurs are extinct because they all died. This tale is a dinosaur. You sound an awful lot like someone else on here that just likes to argue about Oak Island with an obsession that just won't quit. If you know where this treasure is - go find it, or contact Rick and Marty to pontificate your research evidence. Or write your book or make your movie - if that is your end objective. Conjecture is convenient as connecting dots or events that have no connection. But if you expect to convince the majority of real treasure hunters who have followed this from day one - that you have the magical answer to the puzzle - you are quite mistaken. You might as well be walking on the sun. We don't have to accept or believe anything until proven! "No evidence of treasure has ever been found."
I assume that "real treasure hunters” actually hunt treasures. The clue is in the name. As you’re advocating not hunting for treasure then, presumably, you wouldn’t consider yourself to be a real treasure hunter. So, why are you claiming to represent the group?

In my detecting, I’m never put off by the fact that, “no evidence of treasure has ever been found” where I decide to look. I do my research and consider where I feel might be a good place to investigate, and I may decide not to look at areas that I know others have done to death. I also apply this to my research into the great treasure hunts.

The proof that I’ve been detecting in the right place only comes from looking. You’re advocating not looking which means that the proof you demand cannot be forthcoming. This makes no sense at all.

Unlike you, I don’t claim to know all the answers to the Oak Island mystery. I don’t even know if there’s a mystery to be solved which is why I’m investigating the subject. You’re advocating not investigating which means that you’re not interested in knowing whether you’re right or wrong.

You could state your case without such contempt for fellow forum members, and really there’s no excuse for your trying to force your views on anybody else.
 
OP
G

gjb

Full Member
Apr 21, 2016
199
248
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #18
as others as have said, "you cannot prove a negative"...

If I believe in flying, purple and spotted elephants, the 'burden of proof' lies with me making the claim, not with those trying to prove they don't.....

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.


It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
So, what you’re saying is that people here can claim that there’s no treasure on Oak Island. and can demand proof that there is. knowing full well that they can’t prove what they’re claiming to be a fact is actually true. This seems very one-sided to me.

Wouldn’t it be sensible to concede that the matter can’t be proven one way (there is no treasure) and hasn’t been proven the other (there is a treasure) so no absolute claims of fact should be made by either side?

By the way, thanks for the ontological and epistemological observations. I take it that as the claim that "there is no treasure on Oak Island" is asserted with no evidence (as you cannot prove a negative) then it can be dismissed with no evidence ;).
 

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
Staff member
Jul 27, 2006
45,692
47,747
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I can say there is a huge Spanish treasure on a mountain top in the Rockies, but it would be up to me to prove the treasure exists, not someone else to prove it doesn't exist.
 

Singlestack Wonder

Bronze Member
Mar 28, 2014
1,527
2,266
Detector(s) used
Garrett AT Pro
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
gjb: In one of your posts above you mention "the original discoverers".

There were never any "original discoverers" as it's been proven that no one ever discovered anything.

All "claims" about oak platforms, flood traps, cryptic stone, fill in the blank, were made many years after previous diggers quit searching who had made no claims of finding anything.

The hoax has only been perpetuated by folks looking to fleece investors.

200+ years of "searching" has found only debris from common human habitation.

Folks purveying stories of bacon's tomb, shakespeare's writings, pirate treasure, etc. being buried on hoax island are only attempting to sell fantasies in an attempt to sell books, get a cable tv show, or sell models of fictional tombs.

Attempt to sell fiction...
 
Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Simplex Metal Detector
Top