Did a Sawpit start the Legend?

With that thinking then maybe the story is true about finding more platforms as they dug down. I can't remember how deep the boys got before they gave up just from a manpower state of digging any deeper and how many layer of wood platforms they claimed to have seen..
Story goes as seeing existing dig marks in the walls as they dug down...
 

Read it was marks.
Read it was pick marks.
Read it was platforms.
Read it was loose dirt from being a sinkhole.
All uncorroborated.

An amazing coincidence to make a sawpit directly on top of the MP, doncha know?

This Onslow information Crow unearthed - shares and stuff - hints at what we would call Articles of Incorporation. In the US that's necessary at state level to register to do business. Perhaps Canada has a similar system.
 

Of course it is uncorroborated. No way to corroborate any of that at this point either way of course.. I don't know anything about saw pits but do they typically have a "floor" put in or just the dirt at bottom of it.. My thinking has always been that their had to be some truth to the kids story in order for Onslow to be willing to come in and do their dig. If they didn't find any wood platforms at all how did the story go to convince them to join.. Surely someone would have wanted to see the hole and wood they dug up before calling around to people to join Onslow crew..
 

Who would leave their block/tackle hanging above a cache?

And I've not heard any where else of an oak tree nail.
Oh , I've seen nails in oak trees.
Not going to inquire for one at the hardware store.( They regard me with enough suspicion already.)
Who indeed! Probably the same person who wanted them to dig there...Man can be lead down bad or False paths. It is the simple man who believe every word, it is the intelligent who give thoughts to his steps...
 

...mutter.......mutter...

Simeon Lynds
Simeon Linds?
Simeon Lund?
Simon Lynds?
Simon Linds?

Where buried?
Newspaper obits.
Who paid for gravestone?

..... mutter.........mutter .....
 

... mutter...
"that was used to defraud individuals associated with the Truro group who were relatives of Anthony Vaughn's young wife."
Page 2, possible OI Solution, #143.
 

... mutter...
"that was used to defraud individuals associated with the Truro group who were relatives of Anthony Vaughn's young wife."
Page 2, possible OI Solution, #143.
"1790-1820 ... Vaughn ... a philanderer and a man of ill repute..."
May have perpetrated a hoax on wife's relatives.
No proof of course.

"INTERESTING IF TRUE, AND INTERESTING ANYWAY". - Mark Twain
 

More notes...
Page 2, "Suggesting another location...", #95 does a thorough bashing of A Vaughn's reputation, and makes a case as a possible executor of a hoax.
Sources "gossipy newspapers", something regarding an unpaid bill for an industrial pump " in the archives", must be for Truro.
Indirectly proves there was a hole with water in it dug by someone previously which suggests an Onslow footprint.
Good enough, Crow?
 

More interesting stuff...
Page 2, "Oak Island Mystery Solved",#42
The "not the first searchers theory"
Other sources.
 

Heck that's what we all do.

Right now am working on Crow's thing, trying to ID Simeon Lynds, and find proof the Onslow Co existed, digging through old threads for sources of people's opinions. The FACTS embedded in the lengthy diatribes.

Used to be you could look up stuff on a "retired thread" and post new stuff to it. It would reactivate. Now they are look only.
 

My opinion here, but I think over the years a lot of the what I call "non Believers" took such a hard stance and everytime someone would post something they got bashed with the where's the proof, that's not written anywhere, just because it's written doesn't make it true, etc etc. They ran a lot of people off.. Got to the point you couldn't have a decent conversation about it either way..
 

Another. Same thread, #836.
Original sawyers in pit?

N2mini - don't worry too much about people who can't prove their position yeah or nay - they are just guessing.

The rest of us are looking for a clue.
 

The research into this story died years ago, as well as the threads about it. There's simply no good evidence for the OI legends, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. The current "activity" is just an ever evolving chase to legitimize what has no real bearing on any known history. It goes in a million directions trying to cast a very wide net of possibility, hoping to fish our interest.
 

The research into this story died years ago, as well as the threads about it. There's simply no good evidence for the OI legends, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. The current "activity" is just an ever evolving chase to legitimize what has no real bearing on any known history. It goes in a million directions trying to cast a very wide net of possibility, hoping to fish our interest.
Hey you're the guy that bashed A Vaughn's reputation in my post #110 above. Pleased to meet you.

Your post regarding A Vaughn's activities 1795 - 1830 is quite amazing. I am VERY interested in your sources as I have not seen this aspect of the OI story anywhere else. "gossipy newspapers", some litigation regarding an unpaid bill for an industrial water pump " in the archives", and anything else you can remember.

Whether there's treasure or not is not the question - no one knew at the time they started to dig (and still don't know). I want to know WHY they started to dig.
 

Nah, you see the answer lies not in what you are being told now or the version of the story as it is given now ; it is in what is NOT being said now to steer you away from learning of the existence of the 'mystery ending' secret, which was never actually a secret in the first place.

In the late 18th century there was copies of a Spanish origin 'treasure map' in circulation amongst the maritime types. Some thought it showed Oak Island some thought it showed some other island (many islands have similar geography and features).

Those who did went to search Oak Island. Those who didn't went and searched whatever other island they thought the map was showing. There were other islands searched in the region of Oak Island using copies of the same treasure map but you are steered away from learning about these also.

Smith, Mcginnis and Vaughn were given a copy of the 'treasure map' that others had been trying on Oak Island already and went to have a go themselves. They just went back to the previous excavation site that map seemed to mark: you didn't work out that the block and rope they saw in the cleared depression was them just at the site of the prior attempt? That's why this detail appears to be anomalous in the story now as it meant that what happened there was recent. This anomaly doesn't stop though the rather silly speculation the treasure was put there by the Vikings or the Romans or the Templars (or Bacon) sometime long ago,

All you need to do is ask Doug Crowell from the show, not that they are allowed to talk about it at the moment or raise the subject now when outside ears are around. Next time you visit the Museum/Interpretation Centre there ask why there is no mention of all the searchers using a treasure map: you will be told no such records exist.

If you haven't worked it out those appearing on the show with some theory are selected to appear not because of what they know, they are vetted and then allowed to appear due to what they don't know so they don't say things the team there doesn't want you to find out about.

There is an expedition that will be heading to Cocos Island March 2025 to search for the treasure there which I have been talking to. The bad news they had to find out about was the details and interpretative use of the copies of the 'treasure maps' there where found to have been used on Oak Island first. An early chart of Oak Island is drawn the same way older charts of Cocos Island are depicted: after finding no treasure on Oak someone had decided that their copy of the map might then be showing Cocos Island so off they went to search there: it's a right mess at the moment.
 

Attachments

  • Multiple reports.png
    Multiple reports.png
    637.6 KB · Views: 6
  • 94600927_2733183420238707_767793642600398848_o.jpg
    94600927_2733183420238707_767793642600398848_o.jpg
    146 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Hey you're the guy that bashed A Vaughn's reputation in my post #110 above. Pleased to meet you.

Your post regarding A Vaughn's activities 1795 - 1830 is quite amazing. I am VERY interested in your sources as I have not seen this aspect of the OI story anywhere else. "gossipy newspapers", some litigation regarding an unpaid bill for an industrial water pump " in the archives", and anything else you can remember.

Whether there's treasure or not is not the question - no one knew at the time they started to dig (and still don't know). I want to know WHY they started to dig.
Everything alleged to be prior to 1840 is to be considered suspect and likely embellished or invented unless it can be substantiated. That's just a bare minimum requirement. The origin story still given as fact is a complete invention, though. We know that much. 1795 is 32 years after the Planter migration of 1763 to the granted there which includes lots on OI. The alleged discovery of the stone is 40 years after (1803). 40 is a recognizable and repeating numeric detail of this story. The quest there is about finding a shaft that has been described with recognizable symbolic details, not finding a treasure. The reason the shaft was described in the fashion it was has to to do with a desire for it to be recognizable and belonging to a specific pre-Bible era Hebrew narrative that is part of the Freemasonic folklore. As I mentioned to you, some of the OI story details actually fish from another local account and were later attributed to OI. There are enough searcher shafts and activity there to support a boatload of modern speculations. Interesting parallels exist with the numerical details given about this mystery and the Chaldean and Pythagorean numerology that is seen in the early speculative Freemasonry. This suggests that the mystery is modeled on something that has an identifiable origin in fiction. We'd have to think that Freemasons from Truro went there and discovered a Freemasonically inspired story quite by coincidence. It is much more likely they crafted one, or retold one, from bits and pieces they could salvage. Nolan's Cross seems to be quite relatable to the survey of 1762. It's orientation in relation to the main road that divides the island stands out. It is of note that the island was planned and surveyed by someone closely associated with the first Nova Scotia lodge which was part of the 40th regiment of foot. There has always been a possibility that some sort of symbolic layout was executed ca. 1762 at the time of Morris' surveying. It makes little sense that anything significant would be buried there, though, as the land was immediately granted to settlers. For Nolan's cross to have been much earlier and to then "fit" onto the plan of 1762 is a bad suggestion, imo. One can also easily show that the proportions of the "cross" using the kingdom stone excavated by Amundsen is exactly 5 by 8 (720x1152 feet) or 40 again. This once again lines up with a Masonic suggestion (4T is the emblem of Holy Royal Arch Masonry). This is not only modern speculations. The local NS author Thomas Chandler Haliburton wrote an account lampooning the OI story in 1847 as a Masonic non-story. I always recommend people go read that early take on it.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top