Take Offsets from the East Rock, West Rock and Tree, and then from Centre of Triangle

[gjb]

It really could be that simple. The aim is straightforward: provide instructions to locate the deposit, but make them so cryptic that nobody without inside knowledge can break them. However, this would depend on not leaving information on the island that would enable someone to work it out (as was done)!

How does it work? The Rocks are positioned geometrically from the Money Pit and their locations can thus be determined to eight decimal places (to the nearest millimetre) using either early 17th century logarithmic tables or a modern calculator.

As in the image, the aim is to communicate the location of the ‘X’ at top centre of the inner rectangle using the procedure noted. It’s therefore required to specify three offsets, these being in whole numbers of the same unit, bearing at one of the 16 points of the compass from the Rocks and the Tree, thereby forming a triangle. Then, find the centre of the triangle and take a further offset from that point in any appropriate unit.

It’s not as difficult as you might think, particularly with CAD software, but neither does it take at all long using a sheet of paper and logarithmic tables. Note that there is a formula for locating the centre of a triangle by medians.

As shown in the image, the plan is to form a triangle with its centre at the middle of the rectangle marked and then go due north to the ‘X’. The process begins by trial and error, the method shown getting to within an inch of the rectangle's centre horizontally, and then reaching the ‘X’ by using the following instructions:

From the East Rock 111 feet WNW (292.5̊). From the West Rock 111 feet ENE (67.5̊).
From the Tree 225 feet ESE (112.5̊).
From the centre of the triangle 56 feet N (0̊).

However, anybody could work this out, so it’s sensible to make it cryptic. Thus, I convert the units on the first two lines into yards, but not mention this, and combine and reverse the lines. Since the final offset of 56 feet is (7 feet × 8) I’ll make it less obvious, that is, express the distance as 7 feet + 7 feet + (6 × 7 feet), that is, a + b + ac. I avoid specifying a bearing on the last line by informing you that the offset is always in the direction of the Rock Centre Line or, if already on that line, the mid-point of the line between the rocks unless specified otherwise, but always on true bearings (that is, N, S, E or W.) Then I have:

37 ENE and by 37 WNW on Rock
75 ESE Tree
7 feet by 7 feet by 6.

So, now you know how the map instructions work, though there’s still a bit of work to do. As a reminder, the instructions are as follows, the second instruction set being the most straightforward:

1. 18 NE and by 71 W on Rock; 25 ENE 18 SW Tree; 7 feet by 7 feet by 8.
2. 50 feet N and by 8 feet S on Rock; 20 feet NE Tree; 5 feet by 4 feet by 5.
3. 18 W and by 7 E on Rock; 30 SW, 14 N Tree; 7 By 8 By 4.
4. 515 SE and by 50 N; 36 NE, 36 NE Rocks; 3 feet by 3 feet by Four.
5. 360 yards V.R. North 3 stumps 55 feet: from centre of triangle betwixt Rocks; 20 feet E.

All you need to do is to accept that the instructions aren’t fake and actually apply to Oak Island, no matter what so-called or self-styled ‘experts’ say, and then identify where they lead to on the image above perhaps by using the scale bar and a protractor. Together, they actually form a pattern taking the form of a 'W'.

However, it’s far easier and more accurate if I tell you that the West Rock is 57.83 feet due north of the Money Pit (Tree) and the East Rock is 418 feet due east of the Tree and then 109.24 feet due north (thereby making things easy to calculate). You can check this with the Roper Survey of 1937.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Yet ANOTHER "here's where the treasure is" theory.

And yet ANOTHER reference to a DEPOSIT, of which no one has ever defined or provided any historical evidence of any treasure brought to oak island.

And of course, history shows pirates never buried treasure, The divided it up amongst the crew, most of which was spent on drink and women.

The lore of buried treasure came from the book "Treasure Island", which like the oak island treasure, is fiction.

 

[Carl-NC]

However, anybody could work this out, so it’s sensible to make it cryptic.

Are you hurt? The contortions it took to come up with all of that looks painful.

 

[gjb]

Unfortunately, we continue to see far too many people here declaring that they know what may never be known, people with no interest whatsoever in attempting to make inroads into the currently unknown and deriding people who try to do so.

Despite all this gratuitous naysaying, the very simple specification in the thread title could be the very indicator required to demonstrate that a deposit may have been planned and providing the key that unlocks the mystery. That’s not to say that this is necessarily so or that it's all that there is to it, but maybe it deserves to be tested on the island despite many declaring that they know without this having been done that it would be a waste of time and effort. This is not how inquiry works.

Why would anyone totally deny the possibility of a somebody digging a hole and putting something in it when it’s clear that anybody could have done so had they so wished? Thereafter, why deny the possibility of there being instructions for locating such a deposit which, clearly, may even have been somewhere other than in the Money Pit or its immediate vicinity? More significant, had there been such instructions, why would anyone insist that these would definitely not have been disguised so as to ensure that nobody who wasn’t ‘in the know’ could recover the putative deposit?

Furthermore, why would such instructions not be in cipher and why would anyone assume that they would definitely not be cryptic? This would make total sense, but many people still declare that they know for a fact that nobody would ever do this and certainly not people in the past. Declaring that you know what definitely isn’t the answer is as bad as declaring that you know what definitely is.

So, should such instructions exist then the overwhelming likelihood is that they would appear strange, and it would not be immediately obvious how to work them out. However, why would anyone then declare that it would be impossible to do so? This doesn’t mean that everyone should try, or even would try, but why deride people who are prepared to make the effort and why dismiss the instructions as necessarily fake?

Why deride people for trying to think matters through? Cryptic instructions certainly exist, but because these came to light in somewhat strange circumstances few, if any, are prepared to take their content at face value. In any event, people certainly pick and choose as to which instructions might be valid.

However, a puzzle won’t be solved by denying its existence and a cipher won’t be broken without recognising its form and identifying the key that unlocks it.

So, maybe the answer is staring us in the face, but people don’t see it because they’re either just not prepared to think matters through or are fearful of virulent verbal attacks by others questioning their intelligence for trying to do so.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Yet more meaningless hyperbole.

With the exponential # of different oak island treasure theories posted here over the years, please provide historical facts and evidence as to why your theory is correct.

First thing would be to provide historical evidence of what the treasure was that you think was put on the island as well as who put it there.

 

[DizzyDigger]

 

[Carl-NC]

However, a puzzle won’t be solved by denying its existence and a cipher won’t be broken without recognising its form and identifying the key that unlocks it.

In this case, you've provided both the puzzle and the solution through pure speculation. Hand a bunch of folks the map with nothing but those "markers" on it and they can come up with any number of geometrical solutions that make sense to them. And all with a different X-marks-the-spot. Expand this by adding other "markers" that surely exist on other parts of the island and you have potential treasure locations all over the island. Heck, move to the mainland and find all the markers and there can be treasure literally everywhere.

It's a pretty useless exercise. If someone did bury a treasure and used complex cryptic geometry based on markers spread out all over the place then it's probably going to make sense to only them, otherwise it's not a very good system. But the reality is, these cryptic geometric schemes are a fairly recent (20th century) invention, in the same manner that treasure maps were a literary invention of the 19th century. Odds are, no one in the 17th or 18th centuries would have come up with such a complex geometric scheme. But they also would not have buried a treasure 130 feet deep with a marker stone at 90 feet. Every bit of this is the result of modern minds exposed to too much Hollywood, where such things are commonplace.

 

[gjb]

Yet ANOTHER "here's where the treasure is" theory.

And yet ANOTHER reference to a DEPOSIT, of which no one has ever defined or provided any historical evidence of any treasure brought to oak island.

And of course, history shows pirates never buried treasure, The divided it up amongst the crew, most of which was spent on drink and women.

The lore of buried treasure came from the book "Treasure Island", which like the oak island treasure, is fiction.

You insist on reading into everything only what you want to see, not what's actually there. You seem to assume that all researchers believe that there was a deposit on Oak Island. You also assume that what I'm presenting here is "yet ANOTHER 'here's where the treasure is' theory," before knowing what it is.

Even were official documents found in government archives referencing a deposit, this would not be "evidence of any treasure brought to Oak Island." All this would do is to indicate intent, that is, a planned deposit not necessarily an actual one. The plan may not have been implemented, so maybe there never was a treasure on Oak Island.

You also seem to be making the common mistake of assuming that because no such evidence has yet been presented then it never existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Archaeologists and historians recognise this, but clearly you don’t.

I'm suggesting that evidence of intent, of a planned deposit, may well exist, but has perhaps not been recognised for what it is, mainly because of questionable or invalid assumptions such as yours. You’re demanding evidence, but when someone attempts to argue that maybe evidence of an intent to deposit exists you refuse to listen.

You’ve telegraphed to everyone that you’ve succumbed to bias and just don’t have an open mind. Thus, you’re reaction to my research is a foregone conclusion. Whatever I say, you’ll reject it, because you’ve clearly decided it’s wrong before even seeing it.

 

[gjb]

Yet more meaningless hyperbole.

First thing would be to provide historical evidence of what the treasure was that you think was put on the island as well as who put it there.

I'm amazed! Do you really think that's the first thing that has to be done? This is the thinking of The Curse of Oak Island! The first thing would be to demonstrate that there could have been a deposit on Oak Island!!!

 

[gjb]

It's a pretty useless exercise. If someone did bury a treasure and used complex cryptic geometry based on markers spread out all over the place then it's probably going to make sense to only them, otherwise it's not a very good system. But the reality is, these cryptic geometric schemes are a fairly recent (20th century) invention, in the same manner that treasure maps were a literary invention of the 19th century. Odds are, no one in the 17th or 18th centuries would have come up with such a complex geometric scheme. But they also would not have buried a treasure 130 feet deep with a marker stone at 90 feet. Every bit of this is the result of modern minds exposed to too much Hollywood, where such things are commonplace.

You're assuming a heck of a lot, and seem to be suggesting that you can read the minds of people in the past while failing to give them credit for their intellect and achievements. What's more, I'm not suggesting that the plan was to deposit anything of value in the Money Pit. I'm suggesting that maybe there was a planned deposit somewhere else, and that perhaps there could be evidence of this.

 

[Carl-NC]

I'm suggesting that maybe there was a planned deposit somewhere else, and that perhaps there could be evidence of this.

Sounds like begging the question.

 

[gjb]

Sounds like begging the question.

I've a feeling that you don't know what that means. This is not a circlular argument. The proposed test of the hypothesis will either provide support for it or not. Furthermore, I'm not actually declaring that what I'm suggesting has to be correct. That's what I'd like to find out.

In any event, you're the one stating that, "I believe you're wrong, therefore you are," or even, "'I believe there was no deposit therefore there wasn't."

 

[pepperj]

Just another twist of cryptic geometric schemes, that produce nothing except endless contorted word salads.

 

[chalkoutline]

It really could be that simple. The aim is straightforward: provide instructions to locate the deposit, but make them so cryptic that nobody without inside knowledge can break them. However, this would depend on not leaving information on the island that would enable someone to work it out (as was done)!

How does it work? The Rocks are positioned geometrically from the Money Pit and their locations can thus be determined to eight decimal places (to the nearest millimetre) using either early 17th century logarithmic tables or a modern calculator.
View attachment 2216191
As in the image, the aim is to communicate the location of the ‘X’ at top centre of the inner rectangle using the procedure noted. It’s therefore required to specify three offsets, these being in whole numbers of the same unit, bearing at one of the 16 points of the compass from the Rocks and the Tree, thereby forming a triangle. Then, find the centre of the triangle and take a further offset from that point in any appropriate unit.

It’s not as difficult as you might think, particularly with CAD software, but neither does it take at all long using a sheet of paper and logarithmic tables. Note that there is a formula for locating the centre of a triangle by medians.

As shown in the image, the plan is to form a triangle with its centre at the middle of the rectangle marked and then go due north to the ‘X’. The process begins by trial and error, the method shown getting to within an inch of the rectangle's centre horizontally, and then reaching the ‘X’ by using the following instructions:

From the East Rock 111 feet WNW (292.5̊). From the West Rock 111 feet ENE (67.5̊).
From the Tree 225 feet ESE (112.5̊).
From the centre of the triangle 56 feet N (0̊).

However, anybody could work this out, so it’s sensible to make it cryptic. Thus, I convert the units on the first two lines into yards, but not mention this, and combine and reverse the lines. Since the final offset of 56 feet is (7 feet × 8) I’ll make it less obvious, that is, express the distance as 7 feet + 7 feet + (6 × 7 feet), that is, a + b + ac. I avoid specifying a bearing on the last line by informing you that the offset is always in the direction of the Rock Centre Line or, if already on that line, the mid-point of the line between the rocks unless specified otherwise, but always on true bearings (that is, N, S, E or W.) Then I have:

37 ENE and by 37 WNW on Rock
75 ESE Tree
7 feet by 7 feet by 6.

So, now you know how the map instructions work, though there’s still a bit of work to do. As a reminder, the instructions are as follows, the second instruction set being the most straightforward:

1. 18 NE and by 71 W on Rock; 25 ENE 18 SW Tree; 7 feet by 7 feet by 8.
2. 50 feet N and by 8 feet S on Rock; 20 feet NE Tree; 5 feet by 4 feet by 5.
3. 18 W and by 7 E on Rock; 30 SW, 14 N Tree; 7 By 8 By 4.
4. 515 SE and by 50 N; 36 NE, 36 NE Rocks; 3 feet by 3 feet by Four.
5. 360 yards V.R. North 3 stumps 55 feet: from centre of triangle betwixt Rocks; 20 feet E.

All you need to do is to accept that the instructions aren’t fake and actually apply to Oak Island, no matter what so-called or self-styled ‘experts’ say, and then identify where they lead to on the image above perhaps by using the scale bar and a protractor. Together, they actually form a pattern taking the form of a 'W'.

However, it’s far easier and more accurate if I tell you that the West Rock is 57.83 feet due north of the Money Pit (Tree) and the East Rock is 418 feet due east of the Tree and then 109.24 feet due north (thereby making things easy to calculate). You can check this with the Roper Survey of 1937.

In principle, I agree.
We all know that treasures locations could get lost over time when using trees as markers so the idea that someone would use large rocks or boulders to mark the treasure location seems possible.

I would think they would keep the boulders within "line of sight" to avoid the need of a surveyor when they return. But further away as you have identified cannot be ruled out.

They would also need to mark the boulders to avoid confusion with boulders found naturally. Not knowing the details of the boulders identity in your theory, i would hope you chose them because they are marked.

Finally, the calculations used to identify the treasure from the boulder locatons, i would think, should be consistent with those used to plot a course aboard ship. Since I don't know these methods I have to assume you've taken that into consideration.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Just another twist of cryptic geometric schemes, that produce nothing except endless contorted word salads.

Yep. As always whenever these "I've solved the location of the treasure" guys are asked for any proof of their whack-a-mole theories, the word salad excuses flow.

 

[Carl-NC]

The proposed test of the hypothesis will either provide support for it or not.

What's the proposed test of the hypothesis?

I base my beliefs on hold-in-your-hand evidence. And yes, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. In 230 years of digging massively deep holes, not a shred of evidence has arisen that anything was ever buried there. That, in itself, is pretty strong evidence of absence. Using the available evidence, I then assign a probability to the event. For me, the probability that there is a buried treasure on Oak Island is around 0.1%. The probability that the rocks and trees form some kind of complex geometric puzzle is about the same.

 

[gjb]

In principle, I agree.

Thanks very much for your considered comments and questions. The ground markers are positioned geometrically based on equilateral triangles. The clue to this is the presence of two equilateral triangles with sides of ten feet formed by beach stones set into the ground.

We all know that treasures locations could get lost over time when using trees as markers so the idea that someone would use large rocks or boulders to mark the treasure location seems possible.

I would think they would keep the boulders within "line of sight" to avoid the need of a surveyor when they return. But further away as you have identified cannot be ruled out.

As far as I can tell from the contours, the boulders were not in direct line of sight. They were 421.5 feet apart. However, I've got a feeling, which you may appreciate from a future post, that a survey would have been ideal in order to work out the instructions on paper rather than on the ground. Having performed the required calculations, it would then be just a matter of finding the derived location by distance and bearing from one of the surveyed points.

They would also need to mark the boulders to avoid confusion with boulders found naturally. Not knowing the details of the boulders identity in your theory, i would hope you chose them because they are marked.

The rocks had holes drilled into them reported as being over an inch wide and about two inches deep. I imagine these could have been provided to support poles carrying flags for sighting, though I doubt this would have been suitable for precision work.

Finally, the calculations used to identify the treasure from the boulder locatons, i would think, should be consistent with those used to plot a course aboard ship. Since I don't know these methods I have to assume you've taken that into consideration.

The instructions use the 16 point marine compass rose bearings (thus all multiples of 22.5 degrees: E, NE, ENE etc). All bearings are true bearings (not magnetic). This facilitates the calculation of polar coordinates and thereby conversion to Cartesian.

I'll soon be posting what I believe to be the intent of the instructions. They generate a pattern in the form of a 'W' which I feel is indicative of something other than identifying locations at which to dig.

I feel that this is altogether too regular to be sheer coincidence. The points are equidistant and match an extension of the initial geometry that produced the ground marker locations. They are equally spaced on an extended rhombus having internal angles of 60 and 120 degrees. Equilateral triangles yet again! I'm preparing the post now and would welcome your observations and questions when presented.

 

[chalkoutline]

Thanks very much for your considered comments and questions. The ground markers are positioned geometrically based on equilateral triangles. The clue to this is the presence of two equilateral triangles with sides of ten feet formed by beach stones set into the ground.

As far as I can tell from the contours, the boulders were not in direct line of sight. They were 421.5 feet apart. However, I've got a feeling, which you may appreciate from a future post, that a survey would have been ideal in order to work out the instructions on paper rather than on the ground. Having performed the required calculations, it would then be just a matter of finding the derived location by distance and bearing from one of the surveyed points.

The rocks had holes drilled into them reported as being over an inch wide and about two inches deep. I imagine these could have been provided to support poles carrying flags for sighting, though I doubt this would have been suitable for precision work.

The instructions use the 16 point marine compass rose bearings (thus all multiples of 22.5 degrees: E, NE, ENE etc). All bearings are true bearings (not magnetic). This facilitates the calculation of polar coordinates and thereby conversion to Cartesian.

I'll soon be posting what I believe to be the intent of the instructions. They generate a pattern in the form of a 'W' which I feel is indicative of something other than identifying locations at which to dig.

I feel that this is altogether too regular to be sheer coincidence. The points are equidistant and match an extension of the initial geometry that produced the ground marker locations. They are equally spaced on an extended rhombus having internal angles of 60 and 120 degrees. Equilateral triangles yet again! I'm preparing the post now and would welcome your observations and questions when presented.

My concern is it's too complex for a sea captain who mostly like had no formal education. However, google ai makes it seem possible.

In the 17th century, a sea captain's education involved learning how to apply mathematical principles to navigation, particularly when sailing long distances.
Here's a breakdown of the math skills involved

• Trigonometry and Spherical Geometry:.
• Logarithms:
• Dead Reckoning:
• Use of Navigational Instruments:

 

[chalkoutline]

Thanks very much for your considered comments and questions. The ground markers are positioned geometrically based on equilateral triangles. The clue to this is the presence of two equilateral triangles with sides of ten feet formed by beach stones set into the ground.

As far as I can tell from the contours, the boulders were not in direct line of sight. They were 421.5 feet apart. However, I've got a feeling, which you may appreciate from a future post, that a survey would have been ideal in order to work out the instructions on paper rather than on the ground. Having performed the required calculations, it would then be just a matter of finding the derived location by distance and bearing from one of the surveyed points.

The rocks had holes drilled into them reported as being over an inch wide and about two inches deep. I imagine these could have been provided to support poles carrying flags for sighting, though I doubt this would have been suitable for precision work.

The instructions use the 16 point marine compass rose bearings (thus all multiples of 22.5 degrees: E, NE, ENE etc). All bearings are true bearings (not magnetic). This facilitates the calculation of polar coordinates and thereby conversion to Cartesian.

I'll soon be posting what I believe to be the intent of the instructions. They generate a pattern in the form of a 'W' which I feel is indicative of something other than identifying locations at which to dig.

I feel that this is altogether too regular to be sheer coincidence. The points are equidistant and match an extension of the initial geometry that produced the ground marker locations. They are equally spaced on an extended rhombus having internal angles of 60 and 120 degrees. Equilateral triangles yet again! I'm preparing the post now and would welcome your observations and questions when presented.

The question is am asking myself is.. would the captain what to use complex math, hide boulder locations or both.

The simplest solution is two boulders (east rock west rock). Using only two boulders would be less conspicuous yet use them as corners to derive a rectangle using NSEW bearings. The center of the rectangle or one the sides becomes "X". This seems easy enough to remember using the triangle sailing ship to mark the island.

The only question would be...does this simple solution allow those who helped bury the treasure keep from returning on their own and making off with it.

This could be why a complex mathematics is needed but if the calculations place "X" at the center of one of sides, the mathematics would be useless

 

[gjb]

My concern is it's too complex for a sea captain who mostly like had no formal education. However, google ai makes it seem possible.

In the 17th century, a sea captain's education involved learning how to apply mathematical principles to navigation, particularly when sailing long distances.
Here's a breakdown of the math skills involved

• Trigonometry and Spherical Geometry:.
• Logarithms:
• Dead Reckoning:
• Use of Navigational Instruments:

I'm not altogether convinced that the originator was necessarily a sea captain. I'm also prepared to consider that he could have been a military engineer.

I feel that the construction would likely have been well within the capabilities of either. While it's no guide, I'd been taught everything I needed to know before I was 14 years old. The math encompasses trigonometry, circle theorems, simultaneous equations, surds and, of course, logarithms (there were no scientific calculators in schools then - it was either logs or the slide rule!) While I did use a calculator in my reconstruction, I also used 17th century logs to ensure I got the same answer.