TruthbeTold
Sr. Member
Thus the problem with the oak island fictional treasure, all “IF’s” and “WHAT IF’s”.
Never any factual evidence.
Treat Oak Island as an Armchair Treasure Hunt and it has a Solution
- Thread starter gjb
- Start date
Never any factual evidence.
3RDLIFE
Jr. Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2025
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 186
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- beat up radio shack 63-3013, newer GM1000
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
If I had a nickel for every time anyone posted/shared any credible evidence of a treasure actually being there. I would have no nickels.
Hi Cryptid 1990
Sorry for not responding sooner, I thought this thread was finished. Some really useful challenge in here and to be honest you are at a disadvantage as you are working from this thread and assumptions on what the book says which are not correct. I’d rather you checked everything below rather than take my word for it so mail me at contact@weststarbooks.com with your email address and I'll send you a complimentary EPUB of the book. Side-load it to Kindle or just read it as is. Every coordinate, star position and test is in the appendices and the workings so you can rerun them.
On 1200 AD, you're right, and the book says so already. Appendix §B.4 is headed "The epoch was assumed, not derived," and reads: "The date of 1200 AD is an input to this volume, not an output of it… Nothing in this research independently establishes the date. The stones show stellar orientation; they do not date themselves." I adopted it because the thesis of Book One is a Templar-period enterprise, and because Adriano Gaspani — the archaeoastronomer the Lagina production itself commissioned — dated Nolan's Cross to approximately 1200. His coordinates, bearings and tolerances have never been published in checkable form however and my own appendix states that and asks for them. If you reject the date, the geometry still stands and simply belongs to someone else. There's no archaeological construction date for 1200 and I've never claimed one.
On the four boulders. The rule isn't "pick four of six." It's "use what stood above ground in 1200." Five stones were visible then — the four granite boulders of the cross and the Face Stone, which is sandstone, carved and offset. Two more were underground: the fifth granite boulder, which Fred Nolan turned up by accident and out of context, and the Kingdom Stone, found buried later by Amundsen. Both of those buried positions are among the ones the stars independently reproduce, which is the part actually worth testing as the method had no way of knowing where two stones nobody could see were lying. The burial rests on Nolan's own account however, which nobody can now re-check, and testing against uniformly random point sets is slightly generous to me, since glacial erratics are not uniformly distributed.
On seventeen stars. That's the total available, not the number used. Thirteen do the positioning, and they fix six hidden stone positions — two of which turn out to be the Nolan and Amundsen stones above. Twelve of the thirteen are fixed by two medieval lists before a single bearing against the ground is computed: the four Royal Stars of Persia (Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares, Fomalhaut), four Behenian-Northern (Arcturus, Vega, Capella, Procyon) and four Behenian-Southern (Sirius, Spica, Deneb Algedi, Algorab). The thirteenth, Deneb, is admitted on separately stated grounds. Royal and Behenian are medieval categories, not modern cataloguing conventions, which is the reverse of your objection. Of the four not used for stone positions, two mark the primary vault and what is buried there; of the remaining two, Alkaid was circumpolar at this epoch and has no horizon azimuth at all, and Alphecca played no role.
On Persian astrology and Christianity, the transmission is the whole answer. That material reached Latin Christendom through the twelfth-century translators at Toledo — Adelard of Bath, John of Seville, Hermann of Carinthia, Gerard of Cremona, who died in 1187. Arabic astral texts carrying Hellenistic, Sassanian and Babylonian inheritance were being put into Latin and read by Christian clerics for two generations before 1200. A Latin Christian of that date using those star lists isn't committing an anachronism; he's using the newest material in Europe while combining it with Revelation is ordinary medieval practice, not a category error.
On the maths. Given the above it's twenty-six directions from thirteen stars rather than thirty-four — but the thrust of your argument is right lines will cross all over a 140-acre island and intersections are dense. The sharpshooter objection is exactly the right objection, and why I answered it with a test rather than an argument. The claim was never that lines intersect. It's that they intersect on a small, fixed, independently surveyed set of targets more often than random skies do and that is something you can measure. So I built hundreds of invented skies, with the same number of stars scattered at random, and scored them against the same targets with the same tolerances. The real sky beats them, and it beats them harder as the tolerance tightens, which is what a real signal does and a coincidence doesn't. Every one of those runs is published in the appendices with the code.
It genuinely would be great if you took me up on my offer
Sorry for not responding sooner, I thought this thread was finished. Some really useful challenge in here and to be honest you are at a disadvantage as you are working from this thread and assumptions on what the book says which are not correct. I’d rather you checked everything below rather than take my word for it so mail me at contact@weststarbooks.com with your email address and I'll send you a complimentary EPUB of the book. Side-load it to Kindle or just read it as is. Every coordinate, star position and test is in the appendices and the workings so you can rerun them.
On 1200 AD, you're right, and the book says so already. Appendix §B.4 is headed "The epoch was assumed, not derived," and reads: "The date of 1200 AD is an input to this volume, not an output of it… Nothing in this research independently establishes the date. The stones show stellar orientation; they do not date themselves." I adopted it because the thesis of Book One is a Templar-period enterprise, and because Adriano Gaspani — the archaeoastronomer the Lagina production itself commissioned — dated Nolan's Cross to approximately 1200. His coordinates, bearings and tolerances have never been published in checkable form however and my own appendix states that and asks for them. If you reject the date, the geometry still stands and simply belongs to someone else. There's no archaeological construction date for 1200 and I've never claimed one.
On the four boulders. The rule isn't "pick four of six." It's "use what stood above ground in 1200." Five stones were visible then — the four granite boulders of the cross and the Face Stone, which is sandstone, carved and offset. Two more were underground: the fifth granite boulder, which Fred Nolan turned up by accident and out of context, and the Kingdom Stone, found buried later by Amundsen. Both of those buried positions are among the ones the stars independently reproduce, which is the part actually worth testing as the method had no way of knowing where two stones nobody could see were lying. The burial rests on Nolan's own account however, which nobody can now re-check, and testing against uniformly random point sets is slightly generous to me, since glacial erratics are not uniformly distributed.
On seventeen stars. That's the total available, not the number used. Thirteen do the positioning, and they fix six hidden stone positions — two of which turn out to be the Nolan and Amundsen stones above. Twelve of the thirteen are fixed by two medieval lists before a single bearing against the ground is computed: the four Royal Stars of Persia (Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares, Fomalhaut), four Behenian-Northern (Arcturus, Vega, Capella, Procyon) and four Behenian-Southern (Sirius, Spica, Deneb Algedi, Algorab). The thirteenth, Deneb, is admitted on separately stated grounds. Royal and Behenian are medieval categories, not modern cataloguing conventions, which is the reverse of your objection. Of the four not used for stone positions, two mark the primary vault and what is buried there; of the remaining two, Alkaid was circumpolar at this epoch and has no horizon azimuth at all, and Alphecca played no role.
On Persian astrology and Christianity, the transmission is the whole answer. That material reached Latin Christendom through the twelfth-century translators at Toledo — Adelard of Bath, John of Seville, Hermann of Carinthia, Gerard of Cremona, who died in 1187. Arabic astral texts carrying Hellenistic, Sassanian and Babylonian inheritance were being put into Latin and read by Christian clerics for two generations before 1200. A Latin Christian of that date using those star lists isn't committing an anachronism; he's using the newest material in Europe while combining it with Revelation is ordinary medieval practice, not a category error.
On the maths. Given the above it's twenty-six directions from thirteen stars rather than thirty-four — but the thrust of your argument is right lines will cross all over a 140-acre island and intersections are dense. The sharpshooter objection is exactly the right objection, and why I answered it with a test rather than an argument. The claim was never that lines intersect. It's that they intersect on a small, fixed, independently surveyed set of targets more often than random skies do and that is something you can measure. So I built hundreds of invented skies, with the same number of stars scattered at random, and scored them against the same targets with the same tolerances. The real sky beats them, and it beats them harder as the tolerance tightens, which is what a real signal does and a coincidence doesn't. Every one of those runs is published in the appendices with the code.
It genuinely would be great if you took me up on my offer
Users who are viewing this thread
Sponsored Vendors
View all →
