History repeats itself... How many times has the sink hole been dug?

[burlbark]

I just came to a realization. The pit may very well have been dug nearly 500 years ago.

A possible scenario.

Spanish explorers were out exploring islands and came upon a depression on a remote island. Dreaming of stealing riches from native inhabitants and their untold gold riches they stumbled upon a native and began to torture him and demand to know what is in the pit.

What they didnt know was several years before a shipwreck survivor had been stranded on the island after drifting in on debris. He spent many days carving on rocks and leaving signs of his presence. When the Spanish explorers found some scratches on the rocks they knew something was there. There interpreter was busy getting a confession out of the Native, there was 2,000,000 English pounds buried there, plus a Klingon Bird of Prey.

So after many days of digging they get down to the porous rock and find that water is starting to come in on heavy surge days. No problem they say, Lets build a retaining wall and pack it with coconut fibers and it will slow down the water so that our pumps can keep up. Weeks go by with no progress of excavation the water keeps running in. So they say screw it lets dump our trash and hide our presence, fill it back in and add planks from the retaining wall to keep the dirt from recompacting and we will be back to dig it up. They leave a block in the tree and take off back to Spain and shortly there after sink in the North Atlantic with all souls perishing.

This is actually quite a likely scenario if you take the history and intrigue that the area seems to generate.

What are the thoughts on this?

Of course there should be more evidence of prior excavations but lets just say they where really tidy and picked up anything that might have given up the location. We may just be watching history running in a continuous loop with only the technology and names changed. Just digging a dream even if there is nothing there?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Robot]

If mankind’s own imagination or fantasies had not challenged the desires to search out and solve the mysteries in front of him, then the great discoveries of our world would not have taken place.
The “Wheel” may not have been invented, now found in everything from clocks to vehicles to turbines.
"The World is Flat", would have discouraged Columbus from discovering America, and "The Earth being the Center of the Universe", could have halted space exploration.
“Ask a child to name an ancient Egyptian ruler and they will either say Cleopatra or Tutankhamen.
The reason for this is the excavation of the latter’s tomb by Howard Carter in 1922 in the Valley of the Kings. Such was the wealth of treasures and objects in the tomb, and Carter’s meticulousness, it took eight years to empty the tomb and transport its contents to Cairo.”
“Heinrich Schliemann would not have discovered Troy, along with the Mycenaean sites Mycenae and Tiryns from his idea that Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid, actually reflected historical events”
No, skepticism only pushes on true discoverers to find the real truth to mysteries.
They realize the logical evidence discovered will weigh in their favor, and one day prove that something of great importance is or was buried at “Oak Island”.

 

[Dave Rishar]

How many times are you going to cut and paste this?

The invention of the wheel does not prove the existance of a treasure at Oak Island.

 

[Robot]

Until it sinks through!

It is not the discovery of the Wheel, America, or Mycenaean Treasures that will prove there is something at Oak Island.
It is the fact that no amount of skepticism will stop true Discoverers from pursuing their believe and finding the Treasure of Oak Island.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Until it sinks through! It is not the discovery of the Wheel, America, or Mycenaean Treasures that will prove there is something at Oak Island.

Then why mention them? Hell, at least one of them is plain wrong. Columbus missed out on being the first European to the New World by at least 500 years.

For the sake of argument, what is supposed to sink through?

It is the fact that no amount of skepticism will stop true Discoverers from pursuing their believe and finding the Treasure of Oak Island.

Except that it hasn't been found, and little of value has been discovered in the process. Other than that, this statement is sadly correct.

Skepticism is not mindless, repetitive denial. It is reasoned, repetitive denial of things that do not make sense and cannot be proven. It is asking questions and not trusting blind faith to find the truth. Faith certainly has its place in the world, but it's not the basis upon which we normally conduct secular matters. I don't trust that my bills will take care of themselves, or that my belly will remain full and a roof will be over my head. I actively take steps to make these things happen. My trust in intangibles is limited to religion.

If my questions anger or annoy you, this might be an appropriate moment to reflect upon what it is that you don't like about them, and why they bother you. Certain questions bother me, but I know why and I'm comfortable discussing it.

 

[Robot]

Questions do not bother me nor make me mad.

On the contrary with my passion to find the answers for the Oak Island Money Pit, I very much appreciate them.

The knowledgeable members of this Forum (yourself very much included) have challenged my theories and have enabled me to change some of my preconceived ideas.

My statement was that Skepticism (whether well founded or not) only drives on inventors, treasure seekers, and true discoverers and to these (myself included) it is a welcome form of motivation.

I say that "Skeptics" see the Oak Island Money Pit as being "half full of water" while we see it as already being "half empty".

I do believe that Christopher Columbus did discover both "Central and South Americas" on his third voyage, you are right that the distinction of discovering North America goes to the Vikings.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, it was posted -->Columbus missed out on being the first European to the New World by at least 500 years

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually it was by some 12000 years, it had been discovered by the Atlantean in those days.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Also it was posted--> My trust in intangibles is limited to religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If so, then Tayopa, etc., etc would still be missing.


on Jose de La Mancha

p.s. now quit fooling around and pass the coffee --

 

[treasure1822]

Hey All,
What if I could show you a copy of map that Sir Henry Sinclair had made by the Zeno brothers make of Oak Island? The one that shows the location of the deposit providing a person is smart enough to figure it out, which I have. I tried the present members of the Michigan Group that invested in Oak Island. I had to deal with Garnette Blankenship, and though she assured me that that they had viewed what I sent I don't believe that they gave it more that a title glance. Can anybody answer weather this treasure was meant to be found?

 

[treasure1822]

I will answer that question, Yes it was but not by just anyone. Here are two questions that bugged me. 1) If the Money Pit is the location to the treasure and its meant to be found why did they make it imposible to get to. 2) If the Money Pit isn't the location then why was it so obvious that something happen there. The answer is simplistic. The "Money Pit" is a "Red Herring" but yet the "Tree" was a marker. The design of the "Money Pit" was to keep the seekers there focused on that hole that can never be solved with the technoligy of the late 1300's to early 1400's. Why would someone go to the lengths of creating the "Money Pit"? To keep you away from the real treasure!

 

[Dave Rishar]

What if I could show you a copy of map that Sir Henry Sinclair had made by the Zeno brothers make of Oak Island?

I'd be lying if I said that such a thing wouldn't be interesting to examine for the sake of curiosity if nothing else, but mentioning the Zeno brothers and attempting to link them to Sinclair has me wondering about your sources. I'm quite certain that Nicolo Zeno's manuscript is at best faulty (that much can be conclusively proven) and at worst, is an outright hoax. In any event it's demonstrably inaccurate and should not be relied upon. The attempts made by some to shoehorn Sinclair into it, and the wild assumptions that are necessary in order to do this, still mystify me.

Just out of curiosity, this isn't the Zeno map that's on Wikipedia, is it?

Here are two questions that bugged me. 1) If the Money Pit is the location to the treasure and its meant to be found why did they make it imposible to get to. 2) If the Money Pit isn't the location then why was it so obvious that something happen there.

I followed the same logical path, but I arrived at a different conclusion. The red herring theory bothers me, as it would have been simpler, safer, and more effective to simply leave no red herring in the first place; without a reason to look for a treasure, people wouldn't be looking in the first place.

 

[treasure1822]

Okay, for sake of the argument I will leave out the Zeno brothers. The map that I am referring to is not the map from Wikipedia. The map that I am referring to is from Harold T. Wilkins book, “Captain kidd and his skeleton island”. In the late 1920’s to early 1930’s Gilbert had read the book and made an observation that the map from the book looked a lot like Oak Island. Gilbert had the area surveyed by a man named “Roper” and found that distances and directions match the map. I questioned if this could have been a hoax but there was two stones found after the book was written. They were made of white granite and both had ¼” holes in them, they were old and overgrown with brush. Roper had classified them as survey markers. Even more coincident is they were 25 rods apart. Roper had surveyed and found that the stone triangle on the south shore was about 30 rods SW of the spot between the two surveyor stones, and the “Money Pit” was 14 rods north of the stone triangle. What he didn’t know was the 7 by 8 by 4. Think about that, the directions are vague. No where on that map does it give a starting point! You have no idea where this island is and you have no idea where to start. I can give you direction and distance but if you have no starting point what good does it do you? Look at the “Boat Stone” that was found in Westford Massachusetts, it was found while excavating a road in Westford Massachusetts. No one knows of its orientation when it was in the ground. No one know who made it, the only thing that is known is has a 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century ship carved on it and an arrow pointing down and the numbers 184. The map that Wilkin’s had in his book, shown a island that resembled Oak Island. It had other writing on it besides the 18W and 7E, 30SW,14N,Tree, 7 by 8 by 4. But I believed that was added by Wilkins to enhance his story. He had added a date and the initials WK and a few other things but I am only interested in the directions. The other thing that really stuck out to me is that to clearly read the directions on the map, it has to be oriented with North pointed down. Now let us think, how do we read a map? I mean how do we orient a map for reading, where do we put the top of the world? Which way is up? North is up, so what does that do to the distance and direction? It turns them upside down. It changes the order of events. In essence we go backwards or retrace our steps. So what does the 7 by 8 by 4 mean? Was this an error by Wilkins when he copied the map? Was it to add more confusion to the interpretation of the map? I believe that the 7 by 8 by 4 should have been 1 by 8 by 4 which links it to the boat stone. You can’t change what is carved in stone and I would expect that human error to come in to play when a second party enters into the equation. Why was the “Money Pit” and the ”Tree” so obvious to McGinnis and his friends? Because it was meant to be found! But why? Because it’s the starting point on the island! Not the end point! Dave you said that you had problems with the “Red Herring Theory”, due to the fact that no one was following them. There was one group that drove the Templars underground and that was the “Catholic Church”. The Templars sought after one thing and that was “Arcadia”. It’s kind of funny that Nova Scotia I believe means “New Scotland” It was also called Arcadia as early as the 1500’s. Why didn’t the keep their mouth shut and say nothing, because what they had hid was not to be forgotten.

 

[Robot]

The "Money Pit" is a "Red Herring" but yet the "Tree" was a marker. The design of the "Money Pit" was to keep the seekers there focused on that hole that can never be solved with the technoligy of the late 1300's to early 1400's. Why would someone go to the lengths of creating the "Money Pit"? To keep you away from the real treasure!

I agree the Money Pit after it served its purpose as the entrance for the depository of the treasure was booby trapped and became a diversion as to where the real Treasure Vault was located.

The problem with using the large oak tree as a marker for the Knights Templars is that:
It is claimed that the three discoverers found the pit in 1795 ad
If the information as to the large mature Oak Tree capable of supporting the Block and Tackle hanging over the Pit is correct than it would have been a tree of at least 75 years of age.
Experts state that Oak trees on an island (not of old growth oak forests) have a tree life span of from 100 – 150 with 125 being the middle years.
This would place the earliest construction of the Money Pit at around 1745 ad

My theory is that the 18th Century Freemasons based on their esteemed Grand Master and Royal Society member Francis Bacon's map were responsible for the construction at Oak Island.

Although these Freemasons used and left behind markers, they were far too intelligent to rely on man made or natural bearings to recover their treasure which could be subjected to destruction.

With their navigational and astronomy intelligence they used indestructible Celestial markers.

I believe with my computer's 18th Century's Celestial Program and my knowledge of the time and date when this treasure was buried I have recreated all the markers on Oak Island including the location of the Treasure Vault.

I plan to present this shortly on this Forum for your scrutiny

 

[Dave Rishar]

There was one group that drove the Templars underground and that was the “Catholic Church”. The Templars sought after one thing and that was “Arcadia”. It’s kind of funny that Nova Scotia I believe means “New Scotland” It was also called Arcadia as early as the 1500’s. Why didn’t the keep their mouth shut and say nothing, because what they had hid was not to be forgotten.

In your opinion, did the church drive the Templars underground, or did Clement do the necessary amount of paper shuffling (but no more) in order to appease Philip after giving him what he wanted?

The existing documentation makes what happened to the Templars very simple to me, and also why this was necessary. Some people refuse to accept the simple, logical, and documented version of the story, and that's when the mysteries begin to appear.

Along this line, I see no reason for them to have sailed across the Atlantic to bury a treasure. I'm not sure that they had much treasure left to bury by that point, and there were plenty of sympathetic folks in Europe - the pope for one, the Knights of Christ for another. Outside of France, there was little reason for any Templar to hide after the trials were over - just as long as they didn't call themselves Templars. So yes, they were technically driven underground and they lost most of their holdings and loans (which made up the majority of their true wealth), but they were hardly hiding.

As for place names, it can be easy to place too much stock in them. We have a community up north of Poulsbo called Breidablik. Another one nearby to it is Vinland. No one seriously believes that Vikings got anywhere near the Puget Sound (do they?) or that Baldr grew up around here, but that area was heavily settled by Norwegians and they assigned place names accordingly, to include Poulsbo itself. (Slight deviation: Poulsbo was supposed to have been Paulsbo - "Paul's Place" - but became Poulsbo due to a clerical error on the part of the USPS. It is still pronounced like Paulsbo would be, but the misspelling remains. See what I mean about place names?) I suspect that the early settlers of Nova Scotia applied the same practice. The Arcadia place name seems to have been first used by Verrazzano, and referred to basically the entire east coast of North America. Why use Arcadia? It was Greek and it sounded nice, I guess. We'd have to ask him to know for sure.

 

[treasure1822]

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that there was” No more Templars “. People forget that the Templars oath was to “God”, not to the “Pope” and not to “King” Phillip. Heck, Phillip was afraid of the Templars. He had made it a personal campaign to discredit the Templars in the eyes of the church to gain backing of the Pope. King Richard II was a great supporter of the Templar, giving them land but he also believed in the church so he would not interfere with the church. The “Church” forced the Templars into hiding, not disbanding. What people fail to realize is that the “Templars” in the beginning were French knights and Monks that protected “Christians” in the Holy Lands. Their belief in “god” was the roots to their order. The Templars grew in size because of others who shared the same beliefs, and it was a common practice of knights to bring in their sons as legacies, much like the “Masons” today. A son then was honor bound to fulfill their fathers “Legacy”. I think that people forget that what we are talking about was the 12[SUP]th[/SUP] thru early 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century. The “Church” and any “Monarchy” was not bound by any rule that said they had to be humane and treat people with kindness and understanding. This was a time when people understood fear and pain and both the “Church” and the “Monarchy” used it to their favor. Do you believe that the Templars would have placed a “King” or a “Pope” before their “God”. A lot of the “Templars” died for what they believed in even at the hand of torture by the same hands the created those documents. The beliefs then were a far cry from what people believe today. When the Templars were forced to hide they no longer drew attention to themselves. No more did they ride into battle wearing the cross of “St. George”, they reinvented their order but never changed their beliefs. They had woven their way into the fabric of their societies and controlled it with precision. You say that you see no reason for the Templars to sail across the Atlantic to bury treasure. I don’t believe that their decision was quite as simplistic as just looking to bury treasure. Look at their beliefs and their persecution. Why would have the Templars have taken the artifacts from beneath the “Temple of Solomon”? It was to save these holy items from the hands of the Muslims. These items did not belong to any “King” or to the order of religion that sought the Templars destruction. They sought to hide these items in a place where “Monarchy” and the “Church” didn’t exist and under the cloak of secrecy. The theoretical “Edge” of the world would have made a great hiding spot. And if by chance someone had made it the quest to pursue they would be looking for the trail of a “Templar” not a “Viking”.

 

[Smithbrown]

Do you have any evidence for any of those statements? And I think you may mean Richard I rather than Richard II.

 

[treasure1822]

No dissrespect

King Phillip IV, Pope Clement V, and the Fall of the Knights Templar ? Part I - For Dummies

http:/www.beyond-the pale.org.uk/templars.html

I apologise for Richard II, too many hits on the "I" key.

Gentlemen I understand being skeptical but have any of you looked at the map? I believe that you have judged before any has looked at what I offer.
That is not any justice on my part.

 

[Dave Rishar]

You do know that outside of France, hardly any Templars were convicted of anything, right? A good number of them were rolled right into the Hospitallers, just as Clement had originally wanted. When I referred to the Knights of Christ earlier, it was because the Templars in Portugal changed nothing but their name - instead of the Templars, they were the Knights of Christ. They did this at the pleasure and the request of the king of Portugal, who was a staunch ally of theirs. They continued like this for another four centuries or so until the order was secularized. The only Templars who had anything to worry about at all were the French ones, and basically only while Philip was alive. The other ones were free to carry on, just so long as they didn't call themselves Templars.

The pope knew all about this. He had to dissolve the order, but he didn't have to destroy them...and he didn't. That, to me, says that he was rather fond of them. He was more fond of preventing a war with France, but once Philip had gotten what he wanted, Clement did what he could for the Templars.

I've read that the majority of the tortured Templars confessed, but most of them later recanted. That would indicate to me that while they may have been willing to die in battle for their beliefs, they weren't willing to die from torture for them. I don't blame them. Torture at that time was not the relatively tame thing that it is today. The inquisitors did not use stress positions, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. Their methods were barbaric to the point that most modern people simply can't comprehend them, and such methods will essentially guarantee that the victim will say whatever it is that the torturer wanted them to say. Even de Molay confessed. It was that bad. I won't go into details here, but the details are out there if you want to know more about them.

So again, why not hide their treasures closer to home among friends? Why wait 40 or so years and then suddenly bring Sinclair into it way up north when there were established Templars (in all but name) who had the king's support just down the road? Why take it to another continent (incurring a huge risk of losing it, as the translatlantic voyage at the time was by no means a sure success), bury it in the woods, and then leave carved rocks and alleged castles all over the place when it was supposed to remain hidden? And how does this dovetail with the fact that up until a few decades or so, all of the "evidence" and stories supported the pirate treasure theory?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'd afternoon treasure, I tend to consider your remark on orientation of a map as a bit too complex and unnecesary as the data will establish the correct orientation

I have never seen this map, does it have orientation marks Any map is orientated for convenience North generally is to the top, especially in the northern hemisphere..

I might add, why risk the loss of a ship carrying the spoils to the new world when there were an infiinite of places in the old world with no people ?


gonna have to stufy this and solve it for you

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[treasure1822]

UNTIL SOMEONE INVENTS A MR. PEABODY WAYBACK MACHINE I DO NOT WANT ANYMORE ARGUMENTS ON THIS !@#$%^&* HISTORY. They could have all LIED!!!!!!! Just do what I was hoping people would do and LOOK at the MAP!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dave Rishar]

I'm looking at the map. Do you have a larger image? Blowing up the present one causes it to lose resolution quickly and much of it is illegible, but a few quick things:

1. It's dated 1669. How and why would Templars, medieval Italians, or Sinclair map an island in 1669 when they'd allegedly conducted their business three centuries earlier? And why would they do it in Early Modern English, a language that didn't yet exist in Sinclair's time?

I could end there, but let's go on.

2. Palms? Desert? Death Valley? Am I reading this correctly? I would not associate these terms with Nova Scotian islands.
3. Some (all?) of the place names are in Spanish, but the map is written in English. That doesn't sound like Canada to me.
4. There is a superficial resemblance to Oak Island, but there are some problems. The SW inlet doesn't exist, nor does the western point. I would expect the mainland and/or Round Island to appear on a map at this scale, as they are literally within swimming distance from Oak Island itself and it would be useful for a navigator to know that they were there.
5. I don't believe that there is a coral reef preventing passage to the north of Oak Island but my knowledge of this is admittedly spotty. Hopefully one of the locals on this forum can clear that up for us.

That's at a glance. There may be other issues, but I can't read enough of it to comment on them. Again, a larger and clearer image would be appreciated.