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

[WSB]

Fair question, but I can only answer for my own book.

In my case there is the solution and separately the evidence as an addendum and additional data provided free on the website. The coordinates, the star catalogue, all twenty-four alignments with their deviations, the full 55-pairing distance table including the misses, and the code to regenerate all of it is up there. It currently requires an e-mail sign-up intended for post publication updates but I'll have it taken off over the weekend if that's objectionable.

What costs £16.99 is 93,000 words of narrative. That's a book rather than a dataset, it took a year to write and what a reader is paying for is the research, writing, production, printing and distribution.

On the price: £16.99 on a 304-page paperback leaves me about £4 after Amazon's cut and the printing. It isn't a business model and I'll be very lucky to cover my costs.

I wrote the book not to make money, because I very likely won't, but because I want the site protected, once I understood what I believe to be in the ground there.

So judge the argument on the free part. If the alignments don't hold, nothing in the paid part matters — and you'll have found that out

 

[chalkoutline]

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...

My thoughts on oak island changed last month ^when i became aware" that John Smith bought the MP lot in June 1795 after digging the 30ft hole so clearly they believed something was there. This why in 1804 the 3 teenagers/onslow company dug the 90ft shaft looking for treasure.

So i believe there is quite a bit of truth to the story up to the point of finding the 90ft stone. Since the stone is "lost", it cannot be proven.

In an early COOI episode they had 3 mcguinness granddaughters who said the boys found three chests of treasure.

So either they found treasure or they dug 90ft down and found nothing. Either way, if something was there it is no longer there.

 

[WSB]

There was never 3 boys, that part of the story was made up and is traceable to an interview Vaughan Jnr gave in 1949 after the others were deceased. Smith was 19 or 20 in 1795, married and youngest of the "3 boys". Mc Ginnis was about 37 and Vaugan Senior was forty five. In another later version of the story subsequently changed back to the 1949 version there was no Smith and the third was given as Samuel Ball, then aged 30-34. In any event instead of rowing out to a deserted island they walked up the road together and rather than being deserted it was already a farmed, fenced and settled island. Vaughan was an island land owner farming it from the 1870's, Ball and McGinnis bought their first lots in 1787 and 1788 respectively while Smith who did buy the MP lot in 1795 was the step-son of another established OI landowner Neal McMullen. Slightly different than the story of legend !

 

[WSB]

There was never 3 boys, that part of the story was made up and is traceable to an interview Vaughan Jnr gave in 1949 after the others were deceased. Smith was 19 or 20 in 1795, married and youngest of the "3 boys". Mc Ginnis was about 37 and Vaugan Senior was forty five. In another later version of the story subsequently changed back to the 1949 version there was no Smith and the third was given as Samuel Ball, then aged 30-34. In any event instead of rowing out to a deserted island they walked up the road together and rather than being deserted it was already a farmed, fenced and settled island. Vaughan was an island land owner farming it from the 1870's, Ball and McGinnis bought their first lots in 1787 and 1788 respectively while Smith who did buy the MP lot in 1795 was the step-son of another established OI landowner Neal McMullen. Slightly different than the story of legend !

Lol 1949 should be 1849

 

[chalkoutline]

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.

Here's my question...
Based on what you've stated, the Nolan's Cross matched the alignment of the Southern Cross 1200AD. However, the Southern Cross could not be seen in the Mediterranean Sea after 400AD due to progression.

So how did the trmplars even know about the Southern Cross to replicate it on OI?

 

[TruthbeTold]

Here's my question...
Based on what you've stated, the Nolan's Cross matched the alignment of the Southern Cross 1200AD. However, the Southern Cross could not be seen in the Mediterranean Sea after 400AD due to progression.

So how did the trmplars even know about the Southern Cross to replicate it on OI?

More importantly how did the templars know that Nolan was going to move stones to make a fake cross in order to steal limelight away from Dan Blankenship hundreds of years in the future?

Were the members here that stated that the money pit was a space/time warp portal used by the templars to take the treasure to Mars correct?

 

[chalkoutline]

Follow up to that question...
In 1200ad, the sahara and Atlantic winds kept European ships from sailing down the west coast Africa which is where youd need to be to see the southern cross.

First report of the southern cross...
Alvise Cadamosto (a Venetian navigator sailing for Portugal) is credited with the first recorded post-500 AD European observation of the Southern Cross, noting it as the carro dell'ostro ("southern chariot") around 1455 near the Gambia River
Again, how did the trmplars even know about the Southern Cross to replicate it on OI in 1200ad?

 

[chalkoutline]

The cross member of Nolan's Cross is divided equally each 360ft from the vertical. However, the cross member of the southern is asymmetrical with a 5:4 ratio. When this ratio is applied to Nolan's Cross, the left is 400ft and the right 320ft.

The overall shape of the Southern Cross has changed less than 1% since 1200ad.
Yet the cross members length differ by 12%.
There is no need to roll back the constellations 800 years. The 12% asymmetrical cross members tells you they are not the same.

When i developed my own Nolan's Crosstheory, i researed and ruled outthe Southern cross for reasons above.

Here is my theory...

 

[chalkoutline]

Here are the two crosses...they are not the same.

 

[TruthbeTold]

As observed by David Ritcey:

“The boulders are naturally at or near the positions that make up “Nolan’s Cross.” There are about 1000 similar large granite boulders scattered across the east end of Oak Island.

There’s good evidence that Fred Nolan moved several of the boulders to make them more nearly match the ideal dimensions of the cross.

Perhaps strongest proof the cross was manufactured by Fred’s imagination is the geological evidence that Boulder C at the left arm of the cross would not have been visible to human eyes until it was uncovered by erosion of the shoreline within the past 300 years.”

 

[WSB]

@ chalk outline I think there's a crossed wire, and it's an easy one to make. I've never claimed the Southern Cross — my argument involves Cygnus, the Northern Cross, and its principal star Deneb.
That's the whole point of the latitude. Deneb sat at declination 42.6° in 1200, which makes it near-circumpolar at Oak Island's 44.5° north — barely leaving the sky.
I never mention Crux at any point but for what it's worth you're right that Crux had precessed out of Mediterranean view by then, which is why nobody in my account is looking at it.

The alignments I do claim are all published — twenty-four of them, with the star, the measured bearing and the deviation for each.They are checkable in an afternoon.

See direct quote below from the book
"Cygnus is not simply any old constellation. Its principal stars form one of the most recognisable shapes in the northern sky, an asterism known since antiquity as the Northern Cross, with Deneb marking its head and the fainter Albireo marking its foot. For an order whose entire identity was built around the cross of Christ, and whose worldview, as the previous two chapters have shown, from Bernard’s theology to the Cistercians’ geometry to the Templars’ own exposure to Eastern cosmology, held that the pattern of the heavens was not decoration but instruction, a location where the Cross in the sky never set would not have been a curiosity. It would have looked very much like a sign."

​

​

 

[WSB]

As observed by David Ritcey:

“The boulders are naturally at or near the positions that make up “Nolan’s Cross.” There are about 1000 similar large granite boulders scattered across the east end of Oak Island.

There’s good evidence that Fred Nolan moved several of the boulders to make them more nearly match the ideal dimensions of the cross.

Perhaps strongest proof the cross was manufactured by Fred’s imagination is the geological evidence that Boulder C at the left arm of the cross would not have been visible to human eyes until it was uncovered by erosion of the shoreline within the past 300 years.”

Three separate points there, and they deserve separate answers.

On the thousand boulders. That's exactly the null hypothesis, so I tested against it rather than around it. I generated 2,000 random sets of eleven points within the same patch of ground defined by the stones and ran the same 144-foot test on each. The real arrangement hits clean multiples of 144 three to four times more often than chance, and the result holds at every tolerance I tried. More telling is the control: the diagonals of the cross produce no clean multiples at all. Noise doesn't distinguish between a meaningful line and a meaningless one — that the axes hold while the diagonals fail is the part I'd find hard to explain as chance.

On Nolan moving stones. Agreed, and my book says so. He relocated several before satellite positioning existed, which is why I worked from Amundsen's 2003 GPS measurements rather than anything later, (noone in the modern search published coordinates) and why four of my eleven positions are flagged as derived rather than located. It's a real limitation and it's declared.

On Boulder C, I think the sea level runs the other way. Nova Scotia has among the highest rates of relative sea-level rise on the Atlantic seaboard, for two reasons rather than one — the ocean is rising and the province is still subsiding after the ice sheet left. That's well over a metre since 1200. So the shoreline then stood further out, and a stone on today's waterline was further inland and higher above the tide than it is now. The erosion exposing it is recent because the water has been coming to it.

That said, if Ritcey's geological evidence is published somewhere I'd genuinely like to read it — and if he's arguing the stone was buried in till rather than submerged, that's a different claim and sea level wouldn't answer it.

 

[chalkoutline]

See direct quote below from the book
"Cygnus is not simply any old constellation. Its principal stars form one of the most recognisable shapes in the northern sky, an asterism known since antiquity as the Northern Cross, with Deneb marking its head and the fainter Albireo marking its foot. For an order whose entire identity was built around the cross of Christ, and whose worldview, as the previous two chapters have shown, from Bernard’s theology to the Cistercians’ geometry to the Templars’ own exposure to Eastern cosmology, held that the pattern of the heavens was not decoration but instruction, a location where the Cross in the sky never set would not have been a curiosity. It would have looked very much like a sign."

​

​

You never mentioned the southern cross but mentioned 1200ad and rolling back 800 years which is exactly where some experts claim the southern cross matches the Nolan's Cross. So i assumed, although incorrect, your theory was similarly connected.

Now we are on the same page. Can you share exactly how it works?
IOW, dont tell me you solved OI as the reason to buy your book. Tell me why i should buy your book. How its different than all the others and what is reveales.

 

[WSB]

Fair enough. Short version, from scratch but to be clear l'm not asking you to buy the book that' your own call if your interested in knowing what happened on OI in 1200 and since.

Everyone knows Nolan's Cross — five granite boulders in a cross shape, found by Fred Nolan in the 1980s, never explained.

My argument is that those five aren't the whole design. There are six more positions, and they're fixed by stars. You stand at one known stone, sight along the bearing where a named star rose or set in 1200, do the same from another stone, and where the lines cross is where the next stone should be. Do that repeatedly and you get eleven positions.

Two of the six I predicted turn out to be stones that were already found buried — Nolan's fifth stone and the one Amundsen dug up in 2003. So the method predicts two things that were already in the ground before I started, which is the only real test I had.

The whole lot is published free: the coordinates, the star tables, every sightline with how far off it is, and the code. Plus all 55 distances between the stones including the ones that don't work.

The book is why any of this was done, what it points at. It's only one part of five and arguably not the most interesting but the method stands or falls on its own and you can check it tonight for nothing.

 

[chalkoutline]

So lets say i am standing at cone C of Nolan's Cross which is Deneb in the cygnus constellatio. I then take a bearing to where Deneb rose or set in 1200ad
Is thar correct

Is the treasure located where all the lines intersect?

 

[chalkoutline]

I did some star matching.

I started with Cygnus

I then looked at Nolan's Cross

Finally, i superimposed Nolan's Cross on top of Cygnus

Nolan's Cross is a reasonable representation of Cygnus with one exception...Cone A is way off.

This supports my theory that Cone A should be 300 feet further above the cross member of Nolan's Cross.

 

[Cryptid1990]

My argument is that those five [boulders] aren't the whole design. There are six more positions, and they're fixed by stars.

This is retrofitting evidence, and Gjb does the same thing. You appear to be working backward from a desired geometric or astronomical pattern and selectively choosing particular boulders or stones that make the pattern fit your hypothesis. For example, you mention that there are “six more positions”, but Oak Island contains many other boulders and large stones, including stones that are partly or wholly buried. Why are those excluded? What objective, independently defined criterion determines which stones count and which do not? That is the fundamental problem. If the criteria for selecting the relevant boulders are established after the proposed pattern has been identified, then the resulting alignment has little evidential value. You can always choose a subset of points from a much larger number and construct lines or shapes that appear meaningful when they are in fact arbitrary.

The fact that the selected points produce a recognisable geometric pattern does not, by itself, demonstrate that the pattern was deliberately created. This is also a form of apophenia perceiving meaningful patterns or relationships in random data. Oak Island is naturally strewn with many stones and boulders, so the existence of geometric relationships between a selectively chosen subset is not surprising in itself.

The above criticism is not limited to your book or Gjb's. It applies to anyone who attempts to derive geometrical or archaeoastronomical significance from Nolan's Cross or other boulders on Oak Island without first establishing objective criteria for which stones are supposed to constitute the relevant dataset. The fact you and Gjb cannot even agree what boulders/stones to draw imaginary lines from sums up why everything you are doing is arbitrary and is quite frankly pointless.

 

[chalkoutline]

Crptid1990, In principle i agree with everything you said; however, if you look at my pics from previous post...it does appear Nolan's Cross is a pretty good match to Cygnus.
Since Cone C (Denal) is at the north shore, it would make sense Cone C is the starting point.

However, if the Cone A is in it's intended location and not intentionally placed to there to hide the true location of Cone A, then the any match between Cygnus and Nolan's Cross are coincidental as Cryptid suggests.

Weststarbooks, have you tried putting Cone A in it's correct location to match Cygnus?

 

[WSB]

This is retrofitting evidence, and Gjb does the same thing. You appear to be working backward from a desired geometric or astronomical pattern and selectively choosing particular boulders or stones that make the pattern fit your hypothesis. For example, you mention that there are “six more positions”, but Oak Island contains many other boulders and large stones, including stones that are partly or wholly buried. Why are those excluded? What objective, independently defined criterion determines which stones count and which do not? That is the fundamental problem. If the criteria for selecting the relevant boulders are established after the proposed pattern has been identified, then the resulting alignment has little evidential value. You can always choose a subset of points from a much larger number and construct lines or shapes that appear meaningful when they are in fact arbitrary.

The fact that the selected points produce a recognisable geometric pattern does not, by itself, demonstrate that the pattern was deliberately created. This is also a form of apophenia perceiving meaningful patterns or relationships in random data. Oak Island is naturally strewn with many stones and boulders, so the existence of geometric relationships between a selectively chosen subset is not surprising in itself.

The above criticism is not limited to your book or Gjb's. It applies to anyone who attempts to derive geometrical or archaeoastronomical significance from Nolan's Cross or other boulders on Oak Island without first establishing objective criteria for which stones are supposed to constitute the relevant dataset. The fact you and Gjb cannot even agree what boulders/stones to draw imaginary lines from sums up why everything you are doing is arbitrary and is quite frankly pointless.

@ cryptid, I have no control over what anyone else posts only my own. Nolans cross is a series of boulders found by Nolan in 1981 that he believed were intentionally placed in the shape of a christian cross. They bear zero relationship to any celestial constelation, cygnus or any other. Anyone that believes that or is trying to prove that is not in any way reflecting the solution I have published. Nolan's cross is traditionally constructed from 5 boulders, 4 of which werr visible and above ground since 1200, the head , the foot and the two arms, and a 5th 2/3rds of the way down the vertical access between the head and foot found by Nolan by accident and was never meant to be visible above ground at all. Amundsen then found his Kingdom Stone, also buried, when he went to the island to probe his own theory. So now we have 6 stones, 4 always visible and 2 that were found buried. There is also the Face or offset Stone which was also above ground but dors not form part of the cross. Using stars selected in advance and according to a specific rule disclosed BEFORE and not after (so no retrofitting) i used the four always visible Nolans Cross stones and the Face Stone to ifentify six more. Two of them turned out to be the the buried stones already found. The method is stellar alignments from the known stones using star azimuths precessed to 1200 AD. Alignments between two stones, identify the next and so on. The 2 existing found buried had 2 confirming sight lines and the other 4 derived stones three each (the reason ks outlined in the book but not inportant for your understanding) The final arrangement of 10 stones (6+ 4 new ones) encodes a message only a medieval Templar trained in Christian theology and Persian astrology was meant to receive. In general I agree with the thrust of your post. Retrofitting proves absolutely nothing which is why I have posted all the stars, their precessed azimuths and the alignments online. My book explains the derived rule (in advance of deriving the positioning not after) The python code is also published so anyone who actually wants to can replicate my work or take it apart which is the challenge.

 

[chalkoutline]

Weststarbooks, have you tried putting Cone A in it's correct location to match Cygnus?

IOW, if you're going to tie Nolan's Cross to Cygnus, you would have to move the Cone A location to match Cygnus otherwise, the two crosses are not a good enough match.