The Del Mar map isn't even authentic (Everyone by now accepts this as fact) , and not that old. It is one in a series of fakes that have served the wild imaginations of those who could easily, and difficultly (!), see through them to serve their deepest desires.
What Blankenship settled on evolved. He scoured the world looking for a story to fit his delusion. Some of the notable things he favored are the Concepcion salvage and the alleged Lord Anson (Spanish shipping of the ark) mystery folklore. How it ended for Dan was not with those theories. Dan was under the influence of his American friend Betty McKaig in the 1970s who had continued the 50+ year investigation of the Baconian scholar Leonell Strong into a star mapping theory based in the Northern Cross asterism's presence in the constellation of Cygnus. During these years his interest aligned with those of David Tobias who had DeVere, Bacon and Shakespeare in mind. Out of it came a loss of interest in the MP workings. We know he shifted to the hole he called 10-X. The name itself is evocative of ideas in the McKaig theories. Both 10 and X have the same value. This is a theme in the Shakespearean masque suggestion where we have two faces for one reality. The sum of 10 and X is 20 (anciently twenty from "twin t"). The twin T mystery is Strong's pet mystery. It refers to the Triple Tau and its explanatory value in understanding the mystery of life and death. The product of 10 by X is 100 which was understood by Strong to be the Tudor cipher value of Francis Bacon (add up the positional value of the letters in the 24 position alphabet, 67+33).
After Tobias left with his money Dan floundered. He basically hand dug 10-X until the Laginas showed up and reinvigorated the much older theories of countless brain dead scoundrels.
This is not to say any of Strong or McKaig's research has merit. There is nothing in it that implicates OI over any other place except that OI already had an aura of mystery which had shifted there from another local island (Hobson's Nose). The shifting of the story happened between 1830 and the first searcher efforts in the 1840s.
I implore you stop to inventing shit up based on things long ago discredited and spreading it confidently.
Interesting that you try and deny contemporaneous reports saying they just were trying to follow a treasure map from the start. But for what purpose exactly? That it just reveals that you never knew they existed?
It was written about and referred to all the way up to the 1970s, or was all that missed also? You might check out the other islands near Oak searched also using copies of the same map. Let me guess, they didn't mention that either in Darcy O'connor's book?
I'll point this out also: in the Intepretation Centre on Oak Island there is not one mention or display showing records mentioning a treasure map despite them existing and the claims like 'we will do it all to get to the answer' etc etc: you need to ask yourself why they are missing.
And I'll put this here again so you can read the words of the show's researcher, Doug Crowell to bring it home again
You can stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes to pretend all you want that what he wrote likewise somehow doesn't really exist or mean what it says.
Sounds like a winning research strategy to me, just deny what doesn't fit your idea of what you want it to be.
I notice you don't actually try to follow where all this leads to see what it reveals but just try to pretend it's somehow not right?
That things are being suppressed and the general audience steered away from even enquiring along certain lines by pretending they don't exist, it comes down to where you fit in the scheme of things: the consuming audience or those doing to feeding to the audience.
The bottom line is, once the detail of the use of the treasure map is out there is no mystery left, the show and the whole Oak Island industry ends.
