Treat Oak Island as an Armchair Treasure Hunt and it has a Solution

[TruthbeTold]

Key word in there is "probably" No one can prove it either way but I'm thinking it has already been found, either by the original 3 and or Samual Ball. S Ball was pretty well off for the area, and mainly sold cabbage at about 5 cent a head.. That's a LOT of CABBAGE...

5 cents for a head of cabbage was a lot in the 1700's.

 

[TruthbeTold]

No not in the Money Pit although the primary vault was accessible from there at one stage before being destroyed by successive searchers. As to size its a good question and I cam't be sure but it was certainly large. Large enough to require a harbour, hard standing, quay and island infrastructure be built to accomodate construction materials and crews. Certainly the work of many seasons.

Please provide factual evidence of your claims of yet another treasure vault.

 

[WSB]

Too long to go into on a forum thread but the solution has already been published including the answer to Samuel Balls cabbage money 😂😂

 

[Cryptid1990]

Improbable I can accept, even rejection, if it is a considered and honestly held personal view but that still does not make it correct. Similar confirmation bias is exactly the reason the Lagina's are wasting millions drilling an empty hole year after year. Just because someone, or many, believed something before you, does not mean it has to be true. The Norse legends of travelling to the North American continent in approximately 1000 AD were ridiculed by academics until L'aus au Meadows was discovered in the 60's, proved the legends correct and is now a Unesco protected heritage site. What makes anyone so sure that Europeans were not present in Oak Island which is less than 1.000 km south about 200 years later? There was definitive proof on Laus au Meadows that those same Norse travelled or traded with people who had travelled that far South and combining that with the medival
Artefacts discovered in excavations and searches on Oal Island should be enough on its own to at least be open to the possibility.

Historians never disputed the Norse settlement of Greenland (part of the North American continent) on the basis of the medieval textual evidence (for example, Saga of the Greenlanders). What some historians did dispute before the 1960s, was whether the Norse had landed and settled anywhere west of Greenland. The discovery and excavation of L’Anse aux Meadows provided archaeological proof that Norse reached and built a settlement in Newfoundland and an interesting archaeological find in the 1970s suggests the Norse visited Baffin Island (likely the place named "Helluland" in Saga of the Greenlanders), although there is no proof they built a settlement there. In sharp contrast, there is no evidence from medieval literature or archaeology that the Templars had either visited or settled in any part of the North American continent. Where are you getting this incredibly dubious claim from? Most likely a pseudohistory or conspiracy theorist website.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Too long to go into on a forum thread but the solution has already been published including the answer to Samuel Balls cabbage money 😂😂

Please do provide the peer-reviewed journal it was published in if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[WSB]

Historians never disputed the Norse settlement of Greenland (part of the North American continent) on the basis of the medieval textual evidence (for example, Saga of the Greenlanders). What some historians did dispute before the 1960s, was whether the Norse had landed and settled anywhere west of Greenland. The discovery and excavation of L’Anse aux Meadows provided archaeological proof that Norse reached and built a settlement in Newfoundland and an interesting archaeological find in the 1970s suggests the Norse visited Baffin Island (likely the place named "Helluland" in Saga of the Greenlanders), although there is no proof they built a settlement there. In sharp contrast, there is no evidence from medieval literature or archaeology that the Templars had either visited or settled in any part of the North American continent. Where are you getting this incredibly dubious claim from? Most likely a pseudohistory or conspiracy theorist website.

 

[WSB]

The Norse comparison wasn’t intended to suggest that the evidence is identical. My point was that our understanding of historical events changes when evidence is identified and interpreted that wasn’t previously recognised for what it was.
And no, I’m not getting the Templar claim from a pseudohistory or conspiracy website. I’m referring to a recently published solution to the Oak Island mystery which sets out a specific case for who constructed the works(Templars), why they were constructed, and what was deposited there.
You are quite right to ask for evidence. That’s ultimately what the proposition has to stand or fall on.

 

[Cryptid1990]

By credentialed I an assuming you mean academically qualified which demonstrates the ability to comprehend and regurgitate other people’s ideas, rather than any capaity for independent thought. Unfortunately credentialed historians are exactly the cohort who will propogate other peoples ideas and then have their "knowledge" offered as support for a mistaken viewpoint.

If you search on websites that sell books for "Oak Island" you will find dozens to hundreds of pseudohistory books with sensationalist titles trying to link OI to the Templars, pirate treasure or some sort of underground "deposit", freemasons, lost manuscripts of Shakespeare, Ark of the Covenant, Rennes-le-Chateau, Rosicrucians, Holy Grail, conspiracy theories involving bloodlines as well as books that can be classified as sacred geometry/fringe-geometry like the creator of this thread's book The Oak Island Concealment. Below are examples of these titles:

So who is really "regurgitating other people’s ideas"? The above slop has been around for decades and the far-fetched idea of Templars burying treasure on OI is nothing new. Run a web search to see how many Oak Island book titles have "Templar(s)" written in them. 🥱

 

[chalkoutline]

I’m referring to a recently published solution

What you described sounds a lot like cerris frances book which we already debunked Your name sounds like a book publisher. Are you aware of his book?

 

[Cryptid1990]

What you described sounds a lot like cerris frances book which we already debunked Your name sounds like a book publisher. Are you aware of his book?

Curiously, he has removed the book for sale and deleted his entire website. The thread I created thoroughly debunked his book.

 

[Cryptid1990]

I will not post the link but anyone can find the website of the book and "solution" Weststarbooks has alluded to. It is yet another book claiming to have "solved" Oak Island by the same old claptrap about boulders and geometry:

Five granite boulders sit on Oak Island in a pattern nobody has ever fully explained. They were placed deliberately by someone for a reason. That reason is the book.

The geometry is tested not against today’s sky, but against reconstructed historical star positions. When the sky is turned back roughly eight hundred years, a message only a medieval Templar was meant to receive is revealed.

The book also relies on the hoax/fake Zena map (not an authentic medieval map):

A document reputedly dating to the fourteenth century surfaced in 2016 and was quickly dismissed. The book re-examines its geography, its claimed chain of custody, and deciphers its instructions.

 

[WSB]

What you described sounds a lot like cerris frances book which we already debunked Your name sounds like a book publisher. Are you aware of his book?

 

[WSB]

Yes, I'm aware of Kerris Francis's book, centred on Every and Kidd, though I confess I haven't read it. That's not the case I'm making, I'm proposing that the original construction and deposition were medieval and Templar.

I understand the scepticism about Oak Island books generally. There have been a lot of promised solutions over the years with very little evidence to support their assertions and I'm not aware of any that have delivered on the solution promise.

Since a couple of people have picked up on the name, I should be straight about my position, for the work I referenced, Weststarbooks.com is the publisher and I'm the author. I believe the "solution" description holds up, but I'd rather people checked it than took my word for it, which is why the data files, the star tables and the code to reproduce them are published alongside the book.

I'm not here just to reference it. I'm genuinely interested in what objections people who know this story well would raise against the Templar case. Scepticism is the obvious one, and it was my own starting point.

I'm happy to discuss specific evidence and reasoning. What I'd rather not do is reproduce the whole solution here. One small example of the kind of thing I mean.

Take the 1347 date written longhand across the Halpern map. As far as I've been able to establish it has never been read as anything other than a date. I don't believe it is one. It's a sequence — 1, 3, 4, 7 — each term the sum of the two before it.

To a medieval reader trained in Christian Kabbalah that invokes a journey, a descent, from Kether as origin to Malkuth as destination, with two intermediate stages. For the intended recipient of the original map, who would recognise this straight away the origin is Talmont and destination is Oak Island, and the two middle terms are navigational insteuctions.

Both are on the map. The lionceau signals Leo and its principal star, Regulus. The fish at the other end of the signature block signals Piscis Austrinus and Fomalhaut. Put those with "les sud Indien travail tres bon" and you have a route: leave Talmont southward for the trade winds, run west under Regulus, turn north under Fomalhaut.

There's considerably more to the map, and the island annotations matter more than the navigation does but the point is that there's a specific argument here that can be examined and challenged, rather than another assertion.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept the conclusion on one example. Be sceptical — that's exactly why I'm interested in discussing it here. I'd only ask that it be judged on what it actually presents rather than on what other books have failed to deliver.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Yes, I'm aware of Kerris Francis's book, centred on Every and Kidd, though I confess I haven't read it. That's not the case I'm making, I'm proposing that the original construction and deposition were medieval and Templar.

I understand the scepticism about Oak Island books generally. There have been a lot of promised solutions over the years with very little evidence to support their assertions and I'm not aware of any that have delivered on the solution promise.

Since a couple of people have picked up on the name, I should be straight about my position, for the work I referenced, Weststarbooks.com is the publisher and I'm the author. I believe the "solution" description holds up, but I'd rather people checked it than took my word for it, which is why the data files, the star tables and the code to reproduce them are published alongside the book.

I'm not here just to reference it. I'm genuinely interested in what objections people who know this story well would raise against the Templar case. Scepticism is the obvious one, and it was my own starting point.

I'm happy to discuss specific evidence and reasoning. What I'd rather not do is reproduce the whole solution here. One small example of the kind of thing I mean.

Take the 1347 date written longhand across the Halpern map. As far as I've been able to establish it has never been read as anything other than a date. I don't believe it is one. It's a sequence — 1, 3, 4, 7 — each term the sum of the two before it.

To a medieval reader trained in Christian Kabbalah that invokes a journey, a descent, from Kether as origin to Malkuth as destination, with two intermediate stages. For the intended recipient of the original map, who would recognise this straight away the origin is Talmont and destination is Oak Island, and the two middle terms are navigational insteuctions.

Both are on the map. The lionceau signals Leo and its principal star, Regulus. The fish at the other end of the signature block signals Piscis Austrinus and Fomalhaut. Put those with "les sud Indien travail tres bon" and you have a route: leave Talmont southward for the trade winds, run west under Regulus, turn north under Fomalhaut.

There's considerably more to the map, and the island annotations matter more than the navigation does but the point is that there's a specific argument here that can be examined and challenged, rather than another assertion.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept the conclusion on one example. Be sceptical — that's exactly why I'm interested in discussing it here. I'd only ask that it be judged on what it actually presents rather than on what other books have failed to deliver.

You will need to do better than evidence from Zena Halpern. She was a known pseudo historical fiction writer that has been debunked many times. She was in the same company as Amundsen, Wilkes, etc.

 

[Carl-NC]

It's a sequence — 1, 3, 4, 7 — each term the sum of the two before it.

How is "3" the sum of the two numbers before it?

 

[WSB]

You will need to do better than evidence from Zena Halpern. She was a known pseudo historical fiction writer that has been debunked many times. She was in the same company as Amundsen, Wilkes, etc.

Tough crowd! You dismiss the map by discrediting Halpern but not engaging with the reading which os fine but its not overly productive. For the record however ones opinion on Halpern herself is irrelevant she was simply a means of bringing the map public. Its entire modern provenance is completely fabricated which does it no favours but the question then is why someone would create one. In any event if there is something other than the Halpern map your more inzerested in engaging on I'm happy to try

 

[WSB]

How is "3" the sum of the two numbers before it?

Lol fair correction, and my wording was sloppy. 1 and 3 are the seed; only 4 and 7 are generated. 1+3=4, 3+4=7. Any sequence needs two starting terms b4 any rule can operate

 

[chalkoutline]

Yes, I'm aware of Kerris Francis's book, centred on Every and Kidd, though I confess I haven't read it.

The problem with the OI story is that it can't be proven. My approach has been don't prove it but rather disprove it. This is where Cerris Frances theory fell apart. He didn't research HOW the depositors would have done it However, simple calculations easily proved it couldn't be done.

If you haven't thought about this you should.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Rehashing the same mumbo jumbo about your non-belief on every post related to Oak Island should be considered an offense.

At least sceptics are not posting their criticisms behind a pay-wall. Almost every 'believer' instead publishes a book with their evidence-free theories about Oak Island and these books cost typically £10-£30 (some more) and £4-£15 for a Kindle version. The thread creator's book The Oak Island Concealment is £11.99 (£4.99 Kindle). Weststarbooks' book is £16.99 and Cerris Francis' book Oak Island Revelations (before he removed it from sale) was £11.99 for the Kindle and over £20 for a paperback. Why don't these people simply post their writings on Oak Island as articles or essays online free-to-read?

 

[WSB]

Thanks. I honestly have not read Ceris so I cannot comment. As for my own, its covered in detail and verifiable data provided to replicate the findings.