A strong start - season 6

[Robot]

It is very hard to know what the original guys found. The first meida reports are decades later. It is not until 1856 that the first reports of the pit are made

How many Treasure Hunters who have found what they believe is Treasure...Blab to the Media about their Finds?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Raparee]

Why would the original 3 needed to lie about finding logs every 10'

As Gazzahk said, there is no record of the "original 3" finding anything ... logs every 10', 90' stone, etc. All we have are stories originating decades after the facts.

 

[Robot]

Get Your Own...Identity!

As Gazzahk said, there is no record of the "original 3" finding anything ... logs every 10', 90' stone, etc. All we have are stories originating decades after the facts.

Gazzahk or even Dave Rishar are not the Gurus, when it come to the Mystery Of Oak Island...You may have it within yourself to solve this Mystery!

 

[Raparee]

Gazzahk or even Dave Rishar are not the Gurus, when it come to the Mystery Of Oak Island...You may have it within yourself to solve this Mystery!

....ummmmm......okay.........

 

[n2mini]

there has to be earlier reports of the Pit even if it was just local type stuff or how did one of the original 3 come back with another group to continue the dig. I'm not sure of the date but thought he was younger then 75 years old..

 

[gazzahk]

there has to be earlier reports of the Pit even if it was just local type stuff or how did one of the original 3 come back with another group to continue the dig. I'm not sure of the date but thought he was younger then 75 years old..

No there are no earlier documented reports... That is the earliest..

 

[Robot]

Oh How Mighty...The Once Fallen...Have Risen!

The Curse Of Oak Island...Once Again Rises...To Number 1...Over Those True False TV Shows!

Season 6...Episode 9



https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tuesday-cable-ratings-january-15-2019/

Show	Net	Time	Total viewers (000s)	18-49 rating
CURSE OF OAK ISLAND	HISTORY	9:00 PM	3,519	0.7
WWE SMACKDOWN: WWE SMACKDOWN	USA	8:00 PM	2,143	0.7

 

[n2mini]

here is one of many timelines that talks of the timbers every 10' ft. The Onslow Company would have known about this along with other info or why invest in digging.. This is just 8 years after the original three which were all teenagers when they started their dig, and one of them bought a handfull of lots just afterwards. Where did he get this money you think??

http://worldtimeline.info/oakisland/

 

[gazzahk]

here is one of many timelines that talks of the timbers every 10' ft. The Onslow Company would have known about this along with other info or why invest in digging.. This is just 8 years after the original three which were all teenagers when they started their dig, and one of them bought a handfull of lots just afterwards. Where did he get this money you think??

Chronology of the Oak Island Treasure Hunt

The reports re the Onslow company were first published in the 1860s

while excavation information regarding the Onslow and later Truro Company weren't published until the early 1860s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Island_mystery

Once again not until over 55 years after the fact. By the time these reports were published there was a good chance none of the people from the company were even still alive..

That timeline of dates is based on the reports published in the 1860s....

These reports were also based on word and mouth/oral stories/folk law Not first hand accounts of people who were actually there at the time.

There is know way to no how accurately they reflect the real history...

Later reports are just based on the 1860s reports or restatements of other incorrect media reports made afterwards ie the reports of the 'decipherable code' on the 90 foot stone comes from a treasure hunting prospectus trying to raise money in the 1890s.. All later reports of that code are then based on this 1890s document..

Newspapers just want a good story they were not to careful of researching the truth of it.....

As you can see if you read the referenced article the reports of the oak platforms every 10 feet were not published until even later than the 1860s.. None of the earlier reports make that particular claim..

According to later accounts, oak platforms were discovered every 10 feet (3.0 m); however, the earliest accounts simply mention "marks" of some type at these intervals.

It seems a lot of the legend is just people adding wishful thinking and exaggeration to older stories...

As to the original finders being teenagers this is definitely not true (Except for one of them). The historic records show that two of these three were men at the time

But, in fact, both Smith and McGinnis were grown men in 1795 and Vaughan was likely in his later teens. And, interestingly enough, they actually lived and worked on the island.

​ "Daniel McGinnis" was actually a man named Donald MacInnes and from historical documents and family records we have learned that he was born in 1758/59 on the Isle of Skye. We also know that in 1773 he emigrated to North Carolina with his parents when he was around 14 years of age. That would make him 37 years old in 1795, at the time of discovery.

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/blockhouse-blog/daniel-mcginnis-the-man-behind-the-myth

This in itself shows how reports published 60 years after the fact get their details quite wrong (ie the guys ages)...

 

[n2mini]

This is just one of the many stories/tells/theories about OI that it is up to each person as to what they believe. Just above you say "There is know way to no how accurately they reflect the real history...'' So really the stories about the 10' Timbers could be true. As with most of the stories/tells/theories there is no way now to prove most of them right or wrong.. I know I can't prove it and you know you can't either, but just because there is no "writings" about the timbers till years later does not mean they were a lie...

 

[gazzahk]

This is just one of the many stories/tells/theories about OI that it is up to each person as to what they believe. Just above you say "There is know way to no how accurately they reflect the real history...'' So really the stories about the 10' Timbers could be true. As with most of the stories/tells/theories there is no way now to prove most of them right or wrong.. I know I can't prove it and you know you can't either, but just because there is no "writings" about the timbers till years later does not mean they were a lie...

I am showing you the documentary evidence. It is not guessing. If you choose not to believe the evidence that is clearly being presented to you that is your choice....

 

[n2mini]

It is very hard to know what the original guys found. The first meida reports are decades later. It is not until 1856 that the first reports of the pit are made



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Island_mystery

The pit itself was "allegedly" first found and dug in 1799... Therefore it is 57 years later that the first documentary reports of the pit are made.. That is a very long time to know if the reports are accurate or just folk law/myth.

If the guys were in their early 20s when they found the pit they would of been over 75 when the first media reports of the pit were made (or dead)..

Therefore it cannot be just assumed the later reports are accurate. These reports are just based on retold oral stories and are not direct reports from the original finders...

What I'm saying is there is no way for you to know or anyone else to know that the original 3 did or did not find timbers every 10' like they said or have been quoted as saying.. Did they ever come out and say the reports were false? Did anyone from back then ever say the reports were false? So why do you make out like it is a fact that they or someone lied about it? At this point no one knows, we only have the reports that say the timbers were there. Some people don't believe that to be true but that does not mean it's not... and just because you believe it does not make it a fact...

The Onslow Company was on OI long before then and I'm sure others along the way. Just because no big paper reported about it does not mean it was not widely known about in the local area.. or why would the Onslow Company be getting involved to start with. Just handful of years after the original 3 quit digging themselves... We don't know what the 3 told them but no one that was on the island back then has ever said the timber story was a lie..

 

[gazzahk]

What I'm saying is there is no way for you to know or anyone else to know that the original 3 did or did not find timbers every 10' like they said or have been quoted as saying.. Did they ever come out and say the reports were false? Did anyone from back then ever say the reports were false? So why do you make out like it is a fact that they or someone lied about it? At this point no one knows, we only have the reports that say the timbers were there. Some people don't believe that to be true but that does not mean it's not... and just because you believe it does not make it a fact...

The Onslow Company was on OI long before then and I'm sure others along the way. Just because no big paper reported about it does not mean it was not widely known about in the local area.. or why would the Onslow Company be getting involved to start with. Just handful of years after the original 3 quit digging themselves... We don't know what the 3 told them but no one that was on the island back then has ever said the timber story was a lie..

I never said they lied about it.. I simply said there are no first hand reports of this particular piece of information so it is possibly not true..

There is no actual evidence the original finders said there were Oak Platforms every 10 feet....

The laginas show has now resulted in significant proper research being carried out by others on the story (thanks laginas) Accounts prior to the show just restated the version that became common after the publishing of the prospectus in the 1890s.

What much of this research has shown is there is very little evidence to support much of the story and that the first documented reports of the treasure/pit happened around 60 years later.... The research has also shown much of what is said/believed/written about OI has proven to be false ie teenagers, readable inscription etc..

You may be right and there were oak planks but there is little to support this being the case...

 

[n2mini]

That's all I'm saying is we don't know but you want to say it's not true as if you have info to back that up and you don't. Stuff like this is what is happening all over this site. Someone believes something and they say it as if it is a fact and assume everyone is going to believe them just because they say it. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if the timbers were there or not. It would only mean someone went to alot of trouble when filling the Pit back in which in turn leads people to believe there is more to the Pit or why do that.... I would have thought that if the boys did not find the timbers as has been written that at some point they would have said they did not see that to someone...

 

[b3y0nd3r]

As I posted elsewhere:

1790
Daniel Vaughan(Anthony's father) sells Oak Island lots 13 and 14 to Nathaniel Melvin

1795
The original story:
What it is: Dan McInnis saw the lights on the island. The three "lads" discovered an indentation in the ground. They dug down 30 feet and quit.

Why I believe it: Something had to draw them to that spot. If not lights then they went to explore. The indentation in the ground(possibly block and tackle hanging from a tree above) caused them to dig. To have such a precise and detailed story convinced me that it was genuine.

Flag stones on top. Pick marks in the walls. Oak timbers every 10 feet caulked with blue clay and coconut fiber.

What a drab boring story. If I were making something up, it would of been way more detailed with booby traps, skeletal remains, treasure markings and anything exciting I could think of to draw in suckers.

To me, the fact there is no exciting embellishment makes the story credible. Tom's road work story is proof. By the time the Truro company got wind of it, there should of been a Spanish galleon sticking out of the ground in the way of tall tales, but the story didn't change all these years.

Then, not even a month later, this happens:

After discovery of the pit area, John Smith buys Lot 18, the site of the pit, and builds a house. (He later buys lots 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. He lives on the island until his death in 1857).

Why spend the money if nothing was there? Another good question is, where did he get the money to buy these lots? The island is not the garden spot of the world, in fact, it would be quite brutal to live there.

1803-1805
The Onslow Syndicate

1803
The three original diggers interest Simeon Lynds of Truro, related to Vaughan's father. Lynds forms the Onslow Company, appointing Colonel Robert Archibald director of operations. Investors include Sheriff Thomas Harris of Pictou and Captain David Archibald.

Why would the original three come back if they already found the treasure? Why would they come back at all if they made it up? They weren't on a payroll. It wasn't easy money by a long shot.

1804
At 40 feet, a lot of putty is encountered, likely used for sealing an air vent or to plug water leaks. At 50 feet, beach stones are encountered, likely used for backfilling the flood tunnel. At 60 feet, much coconut fibre is found, perhaps used for rope, or caulking with putty. At the 90 foot level, a large stone slab weighing 175-500 pounds measuring 24-36 inches by 12-16 inches is found, possibly with an encoded inscription facing down. Also at 90 feet, water is slowly seeping through the clay. At the 93 foot level, the ground is probed with an iron bar. At 98 feet, it strikes a another wood platform, the first not at 10 foot spacing. The extent of the wood is bounded by the sides of the pit. Digging is halted for the day. (A university professor later supposedly deciphers the rock message as "forty feet below two million pounds lie buried". The stone disappears in the 1930s.)

Again very odd and precise detail to the point of ad nauseam. The stone at 90 feet, it could of been less or more depth. I don't think they were keeping an exact depth gauge handy.

1805
Onslow Company workers dig a new shaft 14 feet south-east of the main shaft, down to 110 feet, then start on a horizontal tunnel toward the main pit. After 12 feet, water floods in, raising water level to 65 feet in both pits. With funds exhausted, the company abandons the treasure hunt.

After only two years, they couldn't raise any more money. Did they use a stone to buy them one more year of digging? If they were scamming people, why would they stick around?

1845
A new company is formed, the Truro Company, including Anthony Vaughan, Dr. David Barnes Lynds, John Gammell, Adams Tupper, and Robert Creelman. Manager is Jotham McCully and foreman is James Pitblado.

Anthony Vaughan As in the 16 year old from the original 1795 dig. He would be 66 years old. Why would he still be there at that age unless he believed in the legend or he found something previously?

There seems to be a lot of facts that don't fit with the "We made the story up for investors" narrative. It also seems as if the original three believed in the treasure so much so, that their lives rotated around the Island.

 

[MikeN]

Again very odd and precise detail to the point of ad nauseam. The stone at 90 feet, it could of been less or more depth. I don't think they were keeping an exact depth gauge handy.

Depth would be the one thing they'd know - not necessarily to the nearest foot, but likely to the nearest 5 feet. Consider that the workers have to climb down and up every day, as well as having to raise and lower supplies and extract fill.

 

[gazzahk]

I would have thought that if the boys did not find the timbers as has been written that at some point they would have said they did not see that to someone...

n2mini did you read any of those referenced articles? The pit was found in 1795. Daniel was 37 years old at the time. The earliest written reports were in the 1856s. The Onlsow and Truo companies efforts first published in 1862..

These accounts said

the earliest accounts simply mention "marks" of some type at these intervals…. The accounts also mentioned "tool marks" or pick scrapes on the walls of the pit…..

It is not until to later accounts that the reference to oak platforms being discovered at every 10 feet is reported..

That means Daniel would of been at least 100 years old (if still alive)…. There are no earlier written accounts. The likelihood is that all three were dead before these accounts are written.

The FIRST written account of the pit

The initial McGinnis excavation first appeared in the Liverpool Transcript in October 1856.

The published accounts of the Onslow and Truo companys (1862 with quoted testimony from those involved) make NO MENTION of oak platforms... Why would this be the case if these two groups had found Oak Platforms…. (Once again I am not saying they did not exist just that the evidence of their existence is very limited and not first reported until 70+ years later..)

Here is a link to all the actual early documents if you are interested in taking a look. They make a very interesting read. You will see the actual historic sources contradict or do not support much of the myth

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/...ak_island_docs_compiled_by_les_m_may_2014.pdf

 

[n2mini]

On Page 1 ( of the Oct 16, 1862 Transcript ) it talks about the timbers being there. Why would the person writing it need to make that up. It had to come from someone..
Page 3 talks about them finding what we now call the Flood Tunnel. It mentioned they drove a "pile" into the drain/tunnel to try to stop the water flow into the pit and while it didn't stop it it DID SLOW IT DOWN.
Not sure you want me to read all of it as it contradicts what most on here think, but of course ya'll will say it is all lies...

 

[gazzahk]

but of course ya'll will say it is all lies...

I have never said that... Why do you make that accusation? Why the personal attacks? It is very clear what I have said... The first published accounts of the oak platforms every ten feet was not made until the late 1860s at earliest. However I will stop engaging with you as I have no desire to get into personal insults with you...

 

[n2mini]

I'm not attacking you. Just saying you come across as a non believer in the timbers just because they were not reported till way later. Up till that point there wasn't much reported about OI at all. The report in your link is wrote in a way that sounds if all the info is coming directly from the source.. so why not believe it...