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

[chalkoutline]

They bear zero relationship to any celestial constelation, cygnus or any other.

If there is no relationship between Nolan's Cross and cygnus, why Oak Island?
If there is no connection between the two, why did you decide to take bearings from cones of Nolan's Cross and where Cygnus stars rise and fall?

 

[WSB]

Nolans cross has no relationship to cygnus. Any relationship is purely symbolic

If there is no relationship between Nolan's Cross and cygnus, why Oak Island?
If there is no connection between the two, why did you decide to take bearings from cones of Nolan's Cross and where Cygnus stars rise and fall?

I don't use cygnus stars and never said or suggested I did. The only star referenced in my book from Cygnus is Deneb. If you look back on the thread I already explained why and posted the excerpt from the book. As for alignments the stars are in the published data set free to anyone that wants them. I'm at a kids rugby match so can't post then on this forum at moment. One of the 17 is Deneb.

 

[chalkoutline]

When you have time, please explain what made you pick Oak Island and Denal (Cone A) to start taking bearings?

 

[chalkoutline]

Oak Island contains many other boulders and large stones, including stones that are partly or wholly buried.

I think my concern is...with so many boulders one cannot just take a bearing from Denal (Cone C), then trace it to a location and find another rock because there are so many.

It seems one would have to identify the characteristics, size, shape, rock type, etc., and if a new stone is found at the specific bearing then you have a away to evavaluate/validate the stone/theory.

 

[WSB]

A boulder is a boulder and a star is a star. There's no relationship between them in themselves.

A line joining two boulders is a sightline. If that sightline sits on the bearing where a named star rose or set, it's an alignment.

The method is simple. Four stones have stood above ground since 1200, plus the Face Stone. Two more were found buried — Nolan came across one by accident, Amundsen dug up the Kingdom Stone in 2003. From the 4 above ground I drew lines along the rising and setting bearings of a pre-selected set of stars. Where those lines intersect, I get a position for a stone I didn't know about.

Not randomly, and not by trying combinations until something fit. Known stones, a fixed list of stars chosen before I started, and the intersection of bearings they held in 1200.

And here's the part that matters. Two of the positions the method produces are the stones Nolan and Amundsen had already dug up. I didn't fit the method to them — they fell out of it. That's the only real test available to me, because those two stones were in the ground long before I started, and if my method had put them somewhere else I'd have had nothing

Every line is published with its star, its measured bearing and its deviation. The worst is 1.48 degrees. The best is 0.03.

 

[TruthbeTold]

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.

Using a fully discredited pseudo historical fiction author such as amundsen really discredits your statements.

Yet here we go again with the same regurgitated, proven false, nonsense posted here many times over the years by yet another attempting to promote interest in their fictional book

 

[TruthbeTold]

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.

Since nolan moved stones to make a cross, why can't everyone?

 

[WSB]

Using a fully discredited pseudo historical fiction author such as amundsen really discredits your statements.

Yet here we go again with the same regurgitated, proven false, nonsense posted here many times over the years by yet another attempting to promote interest in their fictional book

That's a little unfair. Amundsens theory was discredited however the gps positions he used and published, which were independently confirmed by Brian Pharoe are the only accurate gps positions for the known stones that exist. The modern Lagina search does nit disclose or publish their positions. I only referenced his gps positions and the stone he found, the kingdom stone.

 

[WSB]

Since nolan moved stones to make a cross, why cant eveyone

 

[WSB]

Nolan moved some of the stones for reason of preservation rather than anything else but he was a trained surveyor and measured positions before and after. You are right that it rests on trusting Nolan's record. If his survey is unreliable, so is everything downstream of it, including mine. The supporting evidence that he did not is that Amundsens Kingdom Stone (regardless of his theory) was independently found in a predicted position based on projections from Nolan's positions and the 144 feet harmonic relationships hold on the extended verticals as they subsequently do on mine. Everything is downstream of Nolan however so if you suspect him of invention I am unlikely to convince you otherwise.

 

[TruthbeTold]

That's a little unfair. Amundsens theory was discredited however the gps positions he used and published, which were independently confirmed by Brian Pharoe are the only accurate gps positions for the known stones that exist. The modern Lagina search does nit disclose or publish their positions. I only referenced his gps positions and the stone he found, the kingdom stone.

Brian Pharoe was yet another in a long line of paid actors who appeared on the fictional curse of oak island tv show.

The stories he put forth are just more of the same with zero factual evidence.

Just as with gjb and oak island sage, your new storyline will go in a circular discussion here until its debunked for the umpteenth time and you will go somewhere else in an attempt to peddle your book.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Nolan moved some of the stones for reason of preservation rather than anything else but he was a trained surveyor and measured positions before and after. You are right that it rests on trusting Nolan's record. If his survey is unreliable, so is everything downstream of it, including mine. The supporting evidence that he did not is that Amundsens Kingdom Stone (regardless of his theory) was independently found in a predicted position based on projections from Nolan's positions and the 144 feet harmonic relationships hold on the extended verticals as they subsequently do on mine. Everything is downstream of Nolan however so if you suspect him of invention I am unlikely to convince you otherwise.

Since nolan admitted to moving the stones to create his cross, then nolan's record is unreliable and by default false.

 

[WSB]

Since nolan admitted to moving the stones to create his cross, then nolan's record is unreliable and by default fals

Brian Pharoe was yet another in a long line of paid actors who appeared on the fictional curse of oak island tv show.

The stories he put forth are just more of the same with zero factual evidence.

Just as with gjb and oak island sage, your new storyline will go in a circular discussion here until its debunked for the umpteenth time and you will go somewhere else in an attempt to peddle your book.

 

[WSB]

Brian Pharoe is referenced once as corroborating GPS measurements taken by Amundsen, full stop. If you don't believe Nolan's recording of the boulders positions, or Amundsens GPS measurements or Pharoes corroboration of those measurements you can't move past that so there's no circular argument, to pursue. For anyone that does though the challenge is still there. The stars, the precessed azimuths, the alignments, the derived positions are all published free, no peddling. If theres a weakness or error in the argument I would be very happy to know it.

 

[Cryptid1990]

If theres a weakness or error in the argument I would be very happy to know it.

Why have you chosen specific boulders/large rocks to draw imaginary lines between but ignored or disregarded others? For example, as I mentioned in another thread when I debated Gjb on this, I pointed out the fact there are several large rocks on the beach at Joudrey's Cove but why are you ignoring those (like Gjb does) only for so-called "Cone C"? Take a look at the following photograph. There is a large rock nearby the boulder labelled "Cone C" (I highlighted it in red):

Photo from Crooker (1993).

This is why I earlier asked:

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.

 

[chalkoutline]

When you have time, please explain what made you pick Oak Island and Denal (Cone A) to start taking bearings?

Weststarbooks,
After you mentioned Cygnus i thought you might be onto something especially after i superimposed Nolan's Cross on top of Cygnus. For me, the match is too similarly to be accidental.
However, since you clearly stated there is no connection between the two, you need to explain how you chose Oak Island and picked Cone A to take the bearings for rise/fall ot the other Cygnus stars otherwise you don't have a theory.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Brian Pharoe is referenced once as corroborating GPS measurements taken by Amundsen, full stop. If you don't believe Nolan's recording of the boulders positions, or Amundsens GPS measurements or Pharoes corroboration of those measurements you can't move past that so there's no circular argument, to pursue. For anyone that does though the challenge is still there. The stars, the precessed azimuths, the alignments, the derived positions are all published free, no peddling. If theres a weakness or error in the argument I would be very happy to know it.

Amundsen, muir, halpern, pharoe, etc. are all proven purveyors of fiction. None were ever able to produce factual evidence of their claims.

All of those alignments you speak of are also present on my back acreage. I must have a fantastical treasure on my land!

All of the "geometric patterns" ever presented here could apply to millions of locations throughout the world.

 

[WSB]

Hi Crypted. Apologies I thought this was answered via a response to a different question.
I am not choosing any stones or boulders or ignoring any either. My entire starting universe is 4 of Nolans Cross boulders, the Face or Offset stone depending on ypur terminology and 17 named stars.
1) the 17 named stars are preselected according to a fixed rule. 17 no more and no less.
2) I calculate their azimuths (rising and setting) precessed to 1200 AD on OI. Simply maths.
3) I drew alignments through the 4 boulders of Nolans Cross that were visible above ground since 1200 AD using the 17 pre-selected stars
4) Those alignments intersect at 6 meaningful points.
5) 2 of those points intersect at the 2 previously buried stones that have already been found. (Identified by 2 independent alignments intersecting, the stone Nolan found accidentally and Amundsens Kingdom Stone)
5) the other 4 are gps positions where I predict 4 others stones are located and each is identified by 3 independent alignments intersecting
6) those stone positions, 10 in total tell a story through the lens of Revelation in the Bible and the traditional meaning of the named stars in Persian Astrology.

 

[WSB]

Weststarbooks,
After you mentioned Cygnus i thought you might be onto something especially after i superimposed Nolan's Cross on top of Cygnus. For me, the match is too similarly to be accidental.
However, since you clearly stated there is no connection between the two, you need to explain how you chose Oak Island and picked Cone A to take the bearings for rise/fall ot the other Cygnus stars otherwise you don't have a theory.

 

[WSB]

Hi Chalkoutline
I don't understand the first question as I did not choose Oak Island ? I previously posted why I believed the Templars might have been interested in it. I believe you may be looking at your own theory which is unrelated to my solution. I have also already responded to you that I do not use any Cygnus stars as part of the solution apart from Deneb which is one of the 17.