Oak Island: Was something even there.

[G.I.B.]

Most of the treasure hunters had the same tech. ie shovels and picks. It did not take Dan 'hundreds' of people to dig 10X




This shaft was dug in the 1860's without modern tech.

I do not know why people think it is that difficult to dig a 100+ ft hole

Fred Nolan theory has British naval engineers and soldiers behind the pit. I am sure they would of been able to do this without much trouble

(I am not saying I believe the money pit legend but to claim it could not have been done is not true....)

Okay, so the same scenario, but change it to 10 people leaving a known treasure behind without saying anything to anyone and all of them keeping it a secret and not going back for it while living a crappy life.

... still Really?

 

[gazzahk]

Okay, so the same scenario, but change it to 10 people leaving a known treasure behind without saying anything to anyone and all of them keeping it a secret and not going back for it while living a crappy life.

... still Really?

I will say I do not think the deep pit story is likely (my gut feeling is the descendents story is credible and is the source of the rest. ie people digging into a hole where treasure was already removed).

However. There are other plausible arguments for the deep pit. The one I find most plausible is Fred Nolans ie rouge generals burying the treasure. They made it so difficult to get so that no of the individual soldiers/treasure hiders could just come back and get it themselves. Knowing it took a team of engineers/soldiers to recover the treasure.

Quick broad outline of possible thinking :- This theory though would suggest the treasure only sat there for a very short time. ie the ships sailed up to Halifax. Were checked out and handed over some of the treasure. On the way back down the Generals come and recovered the rest they had hid in a place none could steel in the few weeks they had to go away.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I do not know why people think it is that difficult to dig a 100+ ft hole ...

... I am sure they would of been able to do this without much trouble ...

I think you're confusing "impossible" with "difficult" and "trouble". Despite what you may think it's "difficult" and "troublesome" to dig a 100+ ft. hole with hand labor . No it's not "impossible". But please .... don't think for a moment that it's not difficult. It most certainly is !

I can only conclude you've never been a bottle digger who goes to dig outhouse pits 12 ft. deep. Or a boot camp recruit digging foxholes, etc...

I've dug beach pits here in CA (where we dig down 5 ft. on beach sand to reach bedrock, to find old silver coins. And trust me .... it's back-breaking ! The sand on the sides will keep caving in, such that you have to dig a cone-shaped hole to get deeper. And sure, you can argue wooden-wall side-supports, etc... But at what point do you abandon the "not difficult" notion, and veer to the "not impossible" stance

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I think you're confusing "impossible" with "difficult" and "trouble". Despite what you may think it's "difficult" and "troublesome" to dig a 100+ ft. hole with hand labor . No it's not "impossible". But please .... don't think for a moment that it's not difficult. It most certainly is !

Then give the same a try it without leaving any evidence. No shoring, lining or dirt pile. Sure Welsh miners dig much deeper at that time. But look at the mines evidence that is/are still obvious today.

 

[gazzahk]

I think you're confusing "impossible" with "difficult" and "trouble". Despite what you may think it's "difficult" and "troublesome" to dig a 100+ ft. hole with hand labor . No it's not "impossible". But please .... don't think for a moment that it's not difficult. It most certainly is !

I can only conclude you've never been a bottle digger who goes to dig outhouse pits 12 ft. deep. Or a boot camp recruit digging foxholes, etc...

I've dug beach pits here in CA (where we dig down 5 ft. on beach sand to reach bedrock, to find old silver coins. And trust me .... it's back-breaking ! The sand on the sides will keep caving in, such that you have to dig a cone-shaped hole to get deeper. And sure, you can argue wooden-wall side-supports, etc... But at what point do you abandon the "not difficult" notion, and veer to the "not impossible" stance

I never claimed it was not difficult... (Just meaning that modern equipment was not needed to do it)

If there was a pit (once again not saying there was) the people that dug it wanted it to be difficult to get to.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I am very interested in the legend and would like to believe I am open minded so would be very appreciative to see any evidence that you can offer.

Ok, give me the link. And state here beforehand: "I ... gazzahk... being of sound mind and body, do hereby declare that if I can be shown how other explanation prevail more logically, that I too will see the light and dis-believe" Ok ? And by "... show explanation", this does not mean that you come back on and counter with silly explanations like "body doubles" and other wacky conspiracy theories.

I am NOT going to go study these claims, if it boils down to "proving invisible leprechauns don't exist" under someone's bed. Do I have your promise ? If so, provide the link.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I never claimed it was not difficult... .

SURE YOU DID. Here it is. Quoted straight from you. Read and weep:

... I do not know why people think it is that difficult to dig a 100+ ft hole ...

... I am sure they would of been able to do this without much trouble ...

 

[gazzahk]

SURE YOU DID. Here it is. Quoted straight from you. Read and weep:

Ha ha.. So I stand corrected... Was difficult.. Was trouble.....

 

[gazzahk]

Ok, give me the link. And state here beforehand: "I ... gazzahk... being of sound mind and body, do hereby declare that if I can be shown how other explanation prevail more logically, that I too will see the light and dis-believe" Ok ? And by "... show explanation", this does not mean that you come back on and counter with silly explanations like "body doubles" and other wacky conspiracy theories.

I am NOT going to go study these claims, if it boils down to "proving invisible leprechauns don't exist" under someone's bed. Do I have your promise ? If so, provide the link.

Sorry I am unsure what you are asking.. My view is based on the interview with the descendants and the referenced blog articles.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... . There are other plausible arguments for the deep pit. The one I find most plausible is Fred Nolans ie rouge generals burying the treasure. They made it so difficult to get so that no of the individual soldiers/treasure hiders could just come back and get it themselves. Knowing it took a team of engineers/soldiers to recover the treasure.....

Interesting "reason why" explanation. But .... put yourself in the shoes of someone "hiding a treasure". If this was a problem, to keep others from "easily" retrieving it, then presto: Don't enlist those "other people's help". And simply bury it yourself. WITH NO ONE AROUND. Then you merely go 3 ft. deep, cover and fluff up the top, and presto, no one can see where you've dug.

But let me guess: This was not possible d/t the "treasure" weighed 100 tons, hence needing 100 people. Right ? And the bars were not individual 1 lb. bars capable of being carried by a single person, one at a time. It was a single 100 ton bar (they had good smelter back in those days afterall), that needed those 100 people who couldn't be trusted.

Something is telling me this is a giant game of "prove invisible leprechuans don't exist" game

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

The beginning of the story actually starts at the beginning- burying a treasure.

It would have taken a hundred people to dig as deep as they believe the treasure is, with the technology of the time.

From that, the hundreds of starving and broke people would have to leave the treasure in place while living out a paupers life cold and hungry.

Then, hundreds of people would have had to remain silent until all of them died without showing anyone, telling anyone, or passing along where it was all the time knowing where their wealth and salvation was buried.

But they did, before leaving in hunger, carve out maps, symbols, and clues to where it was for others to someday solve.

...really?

Well it could have been the Jesuits because we all know every rock anyone finds is a secret treasure marker so there had to be hundreds if not thousands leaving those rocks all over the place pointing out their treasure locations,Maybe all those rocks are from the excavation of Oak island and they all point back to there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sorry I am unsure what you are asking...

I am asking for the link, of the thread, that you alluded to here:

.... I find the descendants claim credible that three chests were found... (Discussed in detail in other thread).....

But before you link me, you have to make the promise I requested. OK ? I am not going to take the time to study it and bat-it down (explain it away with more plausible explanations), if it's going to fall on deaf "treasure fever" ears.

 

[gazzahk]

Interesting "reason why" explanation. But .... put yourself in the shoes of someone "hiding a treasure". If this was a problem, to keep others from "easily" retrieving it, then presto: Don't enlist those "other people's help". And simply bury it yourself. WITH NO ONE AROUND. Then you merely go 3 ft. deep, cover and fluff up the top, and presto, no one can see where you've dug.

But let me guess: This was not possible d/t the "treasure" weighed 100 tons, hence needing 100 people. Right ? And the bars were not individual 1 lb. bars capable of being carried by a single person, one at a time. It was a single 100 ton bar (they had good smelter back in those days afterall), that needed those 100 people who couldn't be trusted.

Something is telling me this is a giant game of "prove invisible leprechuans don't exist" game

You are quite probably right. I doubt that any treasure was buried at any depth there myself. I think that the a big problem with oak Island is everything that is found there is assumed to be from treasure hiders or treasure seekers and ignores the continuous human activity over hundreds of years on the island. This tied up with treasure seekers lying about what they find to get investors and treasure finders not telling investors what they found. So everything is twisted together and fact and fiction are near impossible to separate...

My own view (pretty loose view at that) is that the descendants 'believe' the story they are telling. This however does not make it true. There great grandfather could of made it up....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well it could have been the Jesuits...

Oh PUULLEEEAASSEEE , don't get me started. I'm a docent museum guide tour leader at Carmel Mission in CA (the headquarters of the other 21 missions). And if I start hearing this Jesuit treasure stuff, I'm going to puke ! They were doing good to get a shipment of cloth, wax, a few paintings and candlesticks, trinkets to pass out to the indians, etc.... If you get me started, I promise, it won't be pretty !

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Well it could have been the Jesuits because we all know every rock anyone finds is a secret treasure marker so there had to be hundreds if not thousands leaving those rocks all over the place pointing out their treasure locations,Maybe all those rocks are from the excavation of Oak island and they all point back to there.

When you take a vow of poverty as the Jesuits do you have to hide the loot deep. ;-)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You are quite probably right. I doubt that any treasure was buried at any depth there myself. I think that the a big problem with oak Island is everything that is found there is assumed to be from treasure hiders or treasure seekers and ignores the continuous human activity over hundreds of years on the island. This tied up with treasure seekers lying about what they find to get investors and treasure finders not telling investors what they found. So everything is twisted together and fact and fiction are near impossible to separate...

My own view (pretty loose view at that) is that the descendants 'believe' the story they are telling. This however does not make it true. There great grandfather could of made it up....

Bingo ! You're onto the other "more plausible" explanations. Good wrap-up. And all the people in-between that 150 yrs. can be quite sincere.

And as for facts being "impossible to separate", don't forget that even if it were "possible" to "separate the facts from fiction" (of all the debate points), if the STARTING "fact" of whether or not there's a treasure there is not true, then it really doesn't matter how much of the other stuff (shafts, fish-drying, ability or in-ability to dig, blah blah) make any bit of difference. If there is no treasure, then it doesn't help to separate any other fact from fiction.

 

[gazzahk]

I am asking for the link, of the thread, that you alluded to here:



But before you link me, you have to make the promise I requested. OK ? I am not going to take the time to study it and bat-it down (explain it away with more plausible explanations), if it's going to fall on deaf "treasure fever" ears.

Ha ha.. I would love to be convinced. I am a skeptic myself and would like to consider myself open minded. OK if you convince me that your explanations adequately counter the claims in the interview and blog articles I will no longer support the view that the original treasure finders took the treasure. I would also greatly appreciate you taking the time to educate me...

I already do not believe that any treasure still exists in the pit.

Gold, legends, and old maps: the story of an Oak Island family's treasure The Blockhouse Blog - The Oak Island Compendium

On the trail of Oak Island's Lieutenant Daniel Vaughan The Blockhouse Blog - The Oak Island Compendium

 

[Tom_in_CA]

When you take a vow of poverty as the Jesuits do you have to hide the loot deep. ;-)

Ahhhh, but see.... you've fallen for the Jesuit conspiracy. They just make you *think* they're sincerely just missionaries (with vows of poverty, caring for others, etc....). It's all just a giant trick to keep you off the track of knowing where their treasure vaults are. Pretty clever of them, eh ?

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

Oh PUULLEEEAASSEEE , don't get me started. I'm a docent museum guide tour leader at Carmel Mission in CA (the headquarters of the other 21 missions). And if I start hearing this Jesuit treasure stuff, I'm going to puke ! They were doing good to get a shipment of cloth, wax, a few paintings and candlesticks, trinkets to pass out to the indians, etc.... If you get me started, I promise, it won't be pretty !

Sorry couldn't help myself

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... if you convince me that your explanations adequately counter the claims ....

Ok gazzahk. But first let's define "adequately counter".

Because I don't want to bump into a situation where .... if I haven't conclusively shut every-single door .... that ... therefore the claim (a found treasure in this case) is still, of necessity "true". In other words, I can already admit that without video evidence, polygraphs, proof of forged interviews, blah blah , that you won't still simply involve me in the type of crazy "possible" scenarios.

Example of how common sense logic doesn't seem to prevail here as "proofs" : If someone tries to give proof of difficulty of pits this deep, someone else points to the pyramids as proof of engineering marvels. Never mind that they took 70 yrs. and entire city populations to build the pyramids ! If you consider counter claims like that, to be satisfactory to 'diss my efforts to explain your links.. I need to know ahead of time.

Hence, define "adequately counter" in such a way that we're on the same page.