Season 11

I will be purchasing the book this weekend to review.
By all means review the book, with my thanks. I'd ask you to bear in mind that, regardless of your final view of the content and the suggestions for testing, you consider the fact that the questions addressed didn't occur to anybody who originally assessed the 'evidence' and that they didn't bother to research the matter and get to the bottom of it.

It's a perception and an investigation that only happened as a result of looking, whether the result is right or wrong. Consider, then, what else might not have been noticed or checked out?

Also, be aware that there's some basic math in it!
 

Book ordered (soft cover version) and waiting for its arrival.

With stories on this forum such as:

a) Money pit is Francis Bacon’s tomb
b) Money pit is an elaborate pit with flood tunnel traps, oak platforms and a cryptic 90 foot stone (now proven to be a faked attempt to dupe investors that ended up in a basement wall)
c) Aztec gold was buried in the money pit
d) The fictional King Arthur landed on oak island with his brother and buried treasure in the money pit
e) Black Beard (and many other pirates) buried treasure in the money pit
f) The templars put the Ark of the Covenant in the money pit
g) The templars used the space/time portal in the money pit to take their treasures to Mars
h) William Shakespeare’s secret writings are buried in the money pit

It’s easy to see that there is no historical foundation for any/all of the far fetched stories about oak island.

The fact that so many have developed completely different theories about what is on the island also adds credibility to the fact that nothing was ever truly there.

100% of everything found to date is nothing more than artifacts from common human habitation.

On one episode of the curse of oak island Dan Blankenship was asked whether he truly believed any treasure was ever on the island. In a senior moment he smiled and said no. That was edited out of on demand and replay episodes.

Fred Nolan feeling left out of the limelight used earth moving equipment to place large stones in the shape of cross. Water marks on the stones from many years underground showed they had been moved.

In closing I’m hoping to see actual evidence in your book pointing to why some sort of treasure was actually buried on the island vs. year another nebulous, fictional story such as those of Diana Muir.
 

Last edited:
It’s easy to see that there is no historical foundation for any/all of the far fetched stories about oak island. ...
I tend to agree with that. My take on the question of who might have been responsible rests on what was deposited (if that ever happened) requiring that we know where on the island it is (if it’s still there).

“The fact that so many have developed completely different theories about what is on the island also adds credibility to the fact that nothing was ever truly there.”

I don’t see how the one follows from the other. The different theories suggest that nobody knows for sure who was responsible for any supposed deposit not that it didn’t happen. Furthermore, “that nothing was ever truly there”, is an assumption not a fact, and I don’t see how anyone could prove it. It may be so, but perhaps something was planned. We don't know.

“100% of everything found to date is nothing more than artifacts from common human habitation.”

Not 100%, surely, but in general I'd tend to agree with respect to recent metal detecting finds.

“Fred Nolan feeling left out of the limelight used earth moving equipment to place large stones in the shape of cross. Water marks on the stones from many years underground showed they had been moved.”

It’s not known for a fact that Nolan constructed the Cross. That’s what you and many others want to believe. However, I can’t comment on your last claim as I’ve never seen it mentioned, don’t know who said it and haven’t seen the supporting argument or evidence.

“In closing I’m hoping to see actual evidence in your book pointing to why some sort of treasure was actually buried on the island vs. year another nebulous, fictional story such as those of Diana Muir.”

The focus of the book is not on ‘who’ but on ‘where’. If there ever was a deposit of value on the island my feeling, and it’s only a guess, would be that it may have been funds to finance one of the wars of the 18th century, perhaps by the British military, possibly before the establishment of Halifax as a potential stronghold. Who knows? There’s not enough historical evidence, but I don’t go for Templars. I just feel that this all seems too early.

However, as I’ve said, we’re only guessing about ‘who’ until we know ‘what’ which means knowing ‘where’ which is why the book recounts a search for evidence of the 'where' of the matter and not the ‘who’.

I’m sure you’ll declare the work to be fiction in any event, but my take on this is that it should be possible to check out the likelihood or otherwise on the island before making any pronouncement.

I note that you’ve decided to reject all the early reports containing potential evidence. I chose to consider what might be the implications of assuming that there could be an element of truth to those reports. It could be that something has been missed or something has been dismissed for the wrong reasons.

You’ve decided that you know all the answers. I haven’t. I continue to ask questions looking for possible answers. Thus, the book recounts the results of my search for answers to specific questions concerning the 'evidence'. That's how research works.
 

Last edited:
"any supposed deposit"

This statement correctly sums up all stories to date about oak island.
I fully understand why someone in the late 18th century might have supposed that there could have been a treasure deposit on the island and why the evidence reported to have found at the Money Pit and Smith’s Cove, should this be true and accurate, would eventually have enhanced that view.

All this really means to me is that there would seem to have been extensive engineering works on the island during the 18th century or prior to it. As we don’t know for what purpose, this presents us with a historical mystery.

However, you choose to believe that it doesn’t and, therefore, choose not to investigate whether there may be evidence of purpose. One of those purposes could even be to deposit a treasure. We don't know. So, might there be evidence of this? You say definitely not. I say, why not look in the sources and check to see if there may be?

I’m not starting off by assuming that there was a treasure. I’m simply looking for evidence suggesting that there might have been - and I don’t consider flood tunnels and water catchments, whether they exist or not, to be evidence of such. There would have to be something else.

If there is something else, it would mean that it's either been missed or dismissed, and if anyone wants to check up on this possibility then they obviously have to look. That's what I did, because I wanted to know. However, it would appear that you don't.
 

Wharfs, warehouses, homes, barns, root cellars, business buildings, outhouses with holes….what extensive engineering on the island are you referring to?
 

Wharfs, warehouses, homes, barns, root cellars, business buildings, outhouses with holes….what extensive engineering on the island are you referring to?
The ones that you declare emphatically never existed, despite being unable to prove that they didn't.

We don't know for a fact either way, but you declare that you do and refuse to consider possibilities simply because you've decided that everybody who's prepared to do so must be wrong.

I see no point in anyone attempting to discuss anything with you, and if this is the appalling state that the forum has come to I also see no point in participating any more.

Your sole aim here to disrupt the forum and drive people off who disagree with you is succeeding.
 

The ones that you declare emphatically never existed, despite being unable to prove that they didn't.

We don't know for a fact either way, but you declare that you do and refuse to consider possibilities simply because you've decided that everybody who's prepared to do so must be wrong.

I see no point in anyone attempting to discuss anything with you, and if this is the appalling state that the forum has come to I also see no point in participating any more.

Your sole aim here to disrupt the forum and drive people off who disagree with you is succeeding.
With absolutely no evidence that extensive engineering projects ever existed on the island, you assert that because no one can prove to the contrary that they did exist.

This is a common theme for those who attempt to get others to beleive in something that never existed for personal reasons such as attempting to sell books.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top