Trying Yet Again: The Instructions on the Treasure Maps Could Be the Key!

[gjb]

If there’s a treasure on Oak Island then it doesn’t have to be in the Money Pit or offset from it. It could be anywhere else on the island.

The advantage of this would be that we could then forget all about the Money Pit: sink holes, treasure platforms, the 90 ft stone, gold links, pieces of parchment, the flood tunnel, the water catchment, Chappell Vault, offset chambers, Garden Shaft etc. The disadvantage would be that there’s a lot of somewhere else on the island.

So, what would be needed is documentation telling us where the deposit is, or was, and we happen to have this in the form of directions on treasure maps that nobody wants to believe could be genuine and produced in order to tell us exactly that.

It’s a treasure hunt, so why wouldn’t there be instructions for finding the supposed treasure? Just because people don’t want to believe that instructions to locate the deposit could have existed doesn’t mean that they didn’t. So, why not start off with the instructions on the treasure maps we know exist, and what we know about the ground markers on the island that might be associated with them, and figure out what they mean?

Having done so, it looks like the spot in question could be in the slightly higher ground northeast of the Money Pit, though potentially in the archaeological zone where they were prevented from digging!!

 

[GravelTeeth]

Chapter 10 of The Curse of Oak Island by Randall Sullivan has a lot good info on the maps. He elaborates on the history of the Wilkins map, for example, much more than in the other books I've read about Oak Island. Apparently the originals of the so-called "Kidd charts" were sold at auction in 1957 to an unnamed party, and vanished from history. We've only got descendants of the hand-drawn copies made by the British Museum now.

It's crazy that Hedden got much more out of the bearings notations that Wilkins apparently invented on his version than anybody has been able to get from the legit info on the originals. The island in the Kidd charts doesn't particularly look like Oak Island. It's boomerang shape is more a match for Gardiner's island, where we know he stashed some loot, but maybe the timeline is wrong for that ... Kidd charts were found in a desk supposedly from the Adventure Galley, but I'm not sure that's the ship that visited Gardiner's.

--GT

 

[gjb]

Chapter 10 of The Curse of Oak Island by Randall Sullivan has a lot good info on the maps. He elaborates on the history of the Wilkins map, for example, much more than in the other books I've read about Oak Island. Apparently the originals of the so-called "Kidd charts" were sold at auction in 1957 to an unnamed party, and vanished from history. We've only got descendants of the hand-drawn copies made by the British Museum now.

It's crazy that Hedden got much more out of the bearings notations that Wilkins apparently invented on his version than anybody has been able to get from the legit info on the originals. The island in the Kidd charts doesn't particularly look like Oak Island. It's boomerang shape is more a match for Gardiner's island, where we know he stashed some loot, but maybe the timeline is wrong for that ... Kidd charts were found in a desk supposedly from the Adventure Galley, but I'm not sure that's the ship that visited Gardiner's.

--GT

I generally find that it’s better to make up your own mind about new information than have somebody else decide your thinking for you.

For instance, the maps were not sold in 1957 to an unnamed party. I happen to know the buyer’s name and where he lived and exactly where the maps were stored, simply because I have more information about the subject than Randall Sullivan does.

Furthermore, I know for a fact that Wilkins got more out of the maps than Hedden did simply because I’m in possession of Wilkins' personal papers, which is an advantage that neither you nor Randall Sullivan have.

One particular advantage of this is that I was therefore able to track down the original maps that the current maps are copies of, and I therefore know that the maps you’re claiming to be original are not. I also know that the originals looked more like Oak Island than the maps you’re referring to. Also, Wilkins didn't invent the instructions, he copied them from earlier maps.

However, why should you be interested in information that you don’t have when you’ve got someone else who doesn’t have it either to make your mind up for you?

 

[GravelTeeth]

I happen to know the buyer’s name and where he lived and exactly where the maps were stored

It would have been great if your next sentence then shared that info with the rest of us. Is there any use in me encouraging you to do so? Something in the way you've arranged your statements makes me a bit pessimistic.

I’m in possession of Wilkins' personal papers

So that's good, right? And what insights have you gained? I take it you find him more relevant that the eccentric he has been made out to be in several of these narratives.

I therefore know that the maps you’re claiming to be original are not.

Well, it's not my claim. The Sullivan version is Hubert Palmer > R.A. Skelton > Wilkins, with the Palmer "originals" from the desk then passing to his nurse Elizabeth Dick, who auctioned them in '57. If I'm following you correctly, they did get auctioned, and you know who has them, but they are not original? Does that mean that the documents from the desk were second gen+, or that something happened to them after they were retrieved from desk? Did I miss a post somewhere where you explained all this already?

However, why should you be interested in information that you don’t have when you’ve got someone else who doesn’t have it either to make your mind up for you?

Uh ... I'll take strong data wherever it comes from. Right now, that source is the books that I have access to. If you've written one, I'll read yours too. Your post has given some tantalizing nibbles. Is there an entree on the way?

--GT

 

[gjb]

It would have been great if your next sentence then shared that info with the rest of us. Is there any use in me encouraging you to do so? Something in the way you've arranged your statements makes me a bit pessimistic.

Do you really think that implying someone is a downright liar is likely to get them to provide you with information? First of all, although the individual has more than likely passed on, the family might not appreciate my making the knowledge known. Second, were I to tell you, you wouldn't believe me because you've effectively already called me a liar. Third, you'd have no way of checking, even were you to ask your source of all knowledge in these matters, Randall Sullivan.

However, I will tell you that the actual sale was in 1956, that the 'buyer' was two people, the maps ended up in Canada and the forename of one of the parties was Maurice. This will be of no help to you at all, and doubtless you will charge me once more with lying. That's something you might work on and try to improve.

So that's good, right? And what insights have you gained? I take it you find him more relevant that the eccentric he has been made out to be in several of these narratives.

I concede that Wilkins was definitely eccentric, but his papers tell a different story than the one you're choosing to believe from the opinions of other people who know no better. You're telling everybody that Wilkins is irrelevant when he's the main reason we know as much as we do about the matter.

Well, it's not my claim. The Sullivan version is Hubert Palmer > R.A. Skelton > Wilkins, with the Palmer "originals" from the desk then passing to his nurse Elizabeth Dick, who auctioned them in '57. If I'm following you correctly, they did get auctioned, and you know who has them, but they are not original? Does that mean that the documents from the desk were second gen+, or that something happened to them after they were retrieved from desk? Did I miss a post somewhere where you explained all this already?

There you go again! Sullivan doesn't know half of the story. I own original letters from Hubert Palmer that provide the actual account, but you obviously prefer not to know. The maps obtained by Palmer were copies of other maps - that is, the originals. What you missed is the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers instead of handing out insults and challenges.

Uh ... I'll take strong data wherever it comes from. Right now, that source is the books that I have access to. If you've written one, I'll read yours too. Your post has given some tantalizing nibbles. Is there an entree on the way?

--GT

I really don't see any point in your reading the book, because it doesn't align with the 'strong data' of luminaries like Sullivan. You've shown that you're not particularly open minded, so I imagine you've already decided the book is nonsense. Thus, nobody here will be at all surprised when you say so.

My advice would be for you stick to what's being widely peddled as the truth of the matter. In any event, you obviously wouldn't have liked the entree when you got it.

 

[Carl-NC]

Do you really think that implying someone is a downright liar...

WOW, where did that come from?

 

[gjb]

WOW, where did that come from?

It’s truly depressing repeatedly coming onto this forum suggesting that it would seem that there are errors in current thinking about Oak Island, that there’s a lot that hasn’t been said, a lot that’s unknown, and that there are different ways to look at the subject, to be told that this is not true because other people say it isn’t.

How can anyone expect to learn if they refuse to listen, if they deny that there can be anything they don’t know, and declaring that people are making statements that are untrue without hearing them out?

I’m unrepentant. I firmly believe that it’s possible we’re not making progress into the Oak Island mystery because people are simply refusing to consider that what others are saying is true because of what’s been said and done in the past.

Maybe mistakes were made in the past that mean that we’re not now thinking correctly. Maybe there is evidence of a deposit on Oak Island that’s been overlooked because people have decided that they know better than to look for it and, specifically, to look into the possibility.

I observed above that I know something that apparently many don’t, and I’m then told that, if asked, it’s doubtful I’ll be able to say what it is (because my claim is false) - that is, that I was lying about knowing what I said I do. At least, this is how I read it.

What I’m suggesting about potential errors in the past could be checked out on the island, but people are saying that whatever it is can’t be true, so it’s nonsense, therefore there’s no sense at all in looking at it or checking it out.

This attitude could be what’s going wrong, why we’ve made no real inroads into the mystery for some 200 years. What I’m constantly seeing here is that there’s absolutely no point in trying to discuss the matter - which happens to be the actual purpose of the forum.

Discussion doesn't mean immediately challenging what people are saying, but asking questions about what's being said. This is actually my fourth attempt, and the message still isn’t getting through.

 

[GravelTeeth]

Do you really think that implying someone is a downright liar

I don't think I did? <checking prior posts> ... No, definitely didn't. The word pessimism here was meant to convey my hunch that you would not want to share the data, and that has proved mostly justified. Which is a shame.

your source of all knowledge in these matters, Randall Sullivan.

I am referencing to Sullivan's book recently for a very simple reason: it's the one I'm reading now. I'm about half way through, moving very slowly. It's the freshest in my memory, and my notes are close to hand. Once I move on the next tome about Oak Island, I'll likely be quoting from that one a bit more, and this one a bit less. Simple. I'm not in a position to form an opinion yet on the truth or falsity of Sullivan's conclusions, but in terms of my impression of his research, he seems thorough, has explored in detail areas that other authors have glossed over, and he cites his sources. That's rather key. It means his results are duplicable, to borrow a phrase from science.

the 'buyer' was two people, the maps ended up in Canada

This matches with Sullivan, who reports that the auction house would only confirm the buyer was an American/Canadian "syndicate". (I guess a syndicate can be just two people.)

You're telling everybody that Wilkins is irrelevant when he's the main reason we know as much as we do about the matter.

Hmmm, don't think I said that either. In terms of what sparked Hedden to look into the Kidd charts in the first place, Wilkins (via Harris) is highly relevant. Without a popular book being published, that part of the mystery might never have connected with the searchers on the ground. You would agree that the "bearings" notations on the Mar Del map do not match the Kidd charts from the desk, though, right?

Sullivan doesn't know half of the story. I own original letters from Hubert Palmer that provide the actual account

Possibly. Did you offer your data to Sullivan when he was writing his book? Who, in the publishing world, is aware of this trove?

What you missed is the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers instead of handing out insults and challenges.

I think I've done nothing but ask questions and request data. I didn't even know you existed until 24 hours ago. You must be reacting to conversations I've had with other users here rather than with you. If that is the case, look for the pattern: you will see that when people are making claims outside the mainstream, sometimes game-changing claims, I will want them to back it up with substantive material, something that we all can vet. If they can't or won't, I may call them out on it. And if they use such unsubstantiated claims to try to stifle conversation rather than foster it, I won't be sweet about it. I'm fine with folks having the most outlandish theories as long as they don't try to put the kibosh on the rest of us via a perceived authority from data they won't share. Unfortunately, your response to me is kinda shaping up in that direction, perhaps inadvertently. It's weird that I've run across several here now who feel very proprietary over the source of their knowledge, a stark contrast to when I used to frequent genealogy forums (long ago) where they couldn't wait to share their data sources, and often volunteered to visit and retrieve on behalf of other participants.

Your post in the other forum (here) conveys that you'd like your research to be taken seriously. Serious researchers make their data available. I can't emphasize that enough. That doesn't just mean your synopsis of the data, either; it means the stuff itself, and the docs that demonstrate its provenance. If you have all the material you have mentioned it would be a great service to the community to digitize it and upload it to the public internet, and let the feeding frenzy begin. Make it so that there is no excuse for any books published after this date to not include references to that stash. This is how you get taken seriously. Enough with the persecution complex.

--GT

 

[gjb]

I don't think I did? <checking prior posts> ... No, definitely didn't. The word pessimism here was meant to convey my hunch that you would not want to share the data, and that has proved mostly justified. Which is a shame.


I am referencing to Sullivan's book recently for a very simple reason: it's the one I'm reading now. I'm about half way through, moving very slowly. It's the freshest in my memory, and my notes are close to hand. Once I move on the next tome about Oak Island, I'll likely be quoting from that one a bit more, and this one a bit less. Simple. I'm not in a position to form an opinion yet on the truth or falsity of Sullivan's conclusions, but in terms of my impression of his research, he seems thorough, has explored in detail areas that other authors have glossed over, and he cites his sources. That's rather key. It means his results are duplicable, to borrow a phrase from science.


This matches with Sullivan, who reports that the auction house would only confirm the buyer was an American/Canadian "syndicate". (I guess a syndicate can be just two people.)


Hmmm, don't think I said that either. In terms of what sparked Hedden to look into the Kidd charts in the first place, Wilkins (via Harris) is highly relevant. Without a popular book being published, that part of the mystery might never have connected with the searchers on the ground. You would agree that the "bearings" notations on the Mar Del map do not match the Kidd charts from the desk, though, right?


Possibly. Did you offer your data to Sullivan when he was writing his book? Who, in the publishing world, is aware of this trove?


I think I've done nothing but ask questions and request data. I didn't even know you existed until 24 hours ago. You must be reacting to conversations I've had with other users here rather than with you. If that is the case, look for the pattern: you will see that when people are making claims outside the mainstream, sometimes game-changing claims, I will want them to back it up with substantive material, something that we all can vet. If they can't or won't, I may call them out on it. And if they use such unsubstantiated claims to try to stifle conversation rather than foster it, I won't be sweet about it. I'm fine with folks having the most outlandish theories as long as they don't try to put the kibosh on the rest of us via a perceived authority from data they won't share. Unfortunately, your response to me is kinda shaping up in that direction, perhaps inadvertently. It's weird that I've run across several here now who feel very proprietary over the source of their knowledge, a stark contrast to when I used to frequent genealogy forums (long ago) where they couldn't wait to share their data sources, and often volunteered to visit and retrieve on behalf of other participants.

Your post in the other forum (here) conveys that you'd like your research to be taken seriously. Serious researchers make their data available. I can't emphasize that enough. That doesn't just mean your synopsis of the data, either; it means the stuff itself, and the docs that demonstrate its provenance. If you have all the material you have mentioned it would be a great service to the community to digitize it and upload it to the public internet, and let the feeding frenzy begin. Make it so that there is no excuse for any books published after this date to not include references to that stash. This is how you get taken seriously. Enough with the persecution complex.

--GT

Whatever! You've just completely shown that you've closed your mind. The data is freely available here, on this very forum, in published academic papers and in my books. I'm not keeping it to myself. I've published images of the supporting documentation and have announced my intention to publish even more here.

I'm not feeling persecuted, I'm simply amazed that people who profess to be interested in resolving the mystery are showing themselves not to be.

I can't publish the entirety of the material I hold, so the sensible thing for people to do is actually be open minded, study what I'm saying, and ask for what might be pertinent. I have to say that your derogatory, demeaning and superior attitude is making me totally unwilling to engage in any discourse whatsoever with you as you obviously cannot be pleasant to others.

Make an effort!

 

[Carl-NC]

I observed above that I know something that apparently many don’t, and I’m then told that, if asked, it’s doubtful I’ll be able to say what it is (because my claim is false) - that is, that I was lying about knowing what I said I do. At least, this is how I read it.

Yeah, I suspect you're the only person who read it that way. BTW, I thought the same as GT, that based on how you were presenting things you were not inclined to share details. Now, did I just call you a downright liar?

 

[Carl-NC]

2. A sinkhole. I recently posted thoughts on this but can't explain why a sinkhole would have log platforms.

Most likely what was mistaken as intentionally placed log platforms was really blowdown that fell into the sinkhole. An identical sinkhole was found on the mainland, complete with stone and log layers.

 

[GravelTeeth]

The data is freely available here, on this very forum, in published academic papers and in my books. I'm not keeping it to myself.

Okay. I don't see harmony on the horizon with this convo. Several of my questions went unanswered, but if the bulk of your source data is now online -- great, that's a good start. You could have linked me to it, though perhaps it feels like capitulation somehow to stoop to guiding me there. Who knows, maybe some day I'll stumble across it.

I can't publish the entirety of the material I hold

Everyone's got their esoteric Reasons. It does not enhance your case to have a portion kept back, let's put it that way.

--GT

 

[gjb]

How on earth do any of you think that this is helping to advance our knowledge and understanding of the Oak Island mystery? You’re far more interested in sniping at people than in analysing what’s been going on with respect to research into the subject over time.

This is how we’ll move forward, but you clearly don’t want that! Why are you here? Just to hear the sounds of your own voices?

The forum surely exists to promote discussion on the many puzzling aspects of the Oak Island mystery, but this seems to be the last thing any of you want to do. You don’t want to look at anything new, and you’re certainly not prepared to be open minded about the subject.

Since Randall Sullivan has been referenced here, it would seem appropriate to quote from his work:

“By the time I’d spent a month on Oak Island ... I felt I understood ... those who had decided that it couldn’t hurt to listen to any idea, no matter how ridiculous it might seem” (Sullivan, 2018, 122-39).

This is being open minded. Why can’t any of you see that and learn from it? We should be questioning our beliefs not insisting on reinforcing them. Just because you don’t like an idea doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It also doesn’t mean that you must immediately attack anyone who thinks differently from you.

Furthermore, your ‘holier than thou’ crap doesn’t help improve the situation. In fact, it seems that all you want to do is be argumentative rather than investigative. The forum presents a vehicle for the exchange of ideas, but the only ideas you want to hear are your own.

The OP is suggesting a new way to look at matters, but the response is that this doesn’t need to be investigated because people in the past have declared it to be wrong. When it’s suggested that maybe they could have made a mistake you entrench rather than explore.

So, fine. You’re happy, and you get the forum you want, but is this the type of forum that’s actually needed? Is it at all useful? I'd say not. Anyway, once again, it's all yours.

 

[GravelTeeth]

I don't see it unless you were making/repairing a lot of masts.

Or one very paranoid ship captain who didn't want his mast project seen above the treetops from offshore. Though if they were crafting it above ground I imagine they'd work on it in the horizontal plane.

I got curious how tall masts were and this is what Perplexity told me:

... "However, for typical full-rigged three-masted vessels of the 18th century, mainmast heights (total length) generally ranged from about 65 feet up to around 120 feet for the largest ships, with most common warships and merchantmen falling between 70 and 100 feet. The height above the upper deck was less, as a significant portion of the mast was below deck or stepped into the keelson."

Take it with a grain of salt, naturally.

--GT

 

[chalkoutline]

Or one very paranoid ship captain who didn't want his mast project seen above the treetops from offshore. Though if they were crafting it above ground I imagine they'd work on it in the horizontal plane.

I got curious how tall masts were and this is what Perplexity told me:

... "However, for typical full-rigged three-masted vessels of the 18th century, mainmast heights (total length) generally ranged from about 65 feet up to around 120 feet for the largest ships, with most common warships and merchantmen falling between 70 and 100 feet. The height above the upper deck was less, as a significant portion of the mast was below deck or stepped into the keelson."

Take it with a grain of salt, naturally.

--GT

GT, that's what I like about you. You always find a way to add to the conversation, thanks CO

 

[Carl-NC]

“By the time I’d spent a month on Oak Island ... I felt I understood ... those who had decided that it couldn’t hurt to listen to any idea, no matter how ridiculous it might seem” (Sullivan, 2018, 122-39).

One of the problems is that, as time goes on and nothing is ever found, the ideas get more and more ridiculous*. What's the point of all these ridiculous theories except to barely keep alive a tale that probably deserves to die. But it won't die, as long as there are enough gullibillies with enough money to continue digging holes and making up new theories. I swear, aliens have to be on the horizon.

*Ferinstance, digging a 100-foot hole for the purpose of making ship's masts. But no one does it this way, they are made horizontally where it's super-easy to work the entire length and easy to measure straightness. Or that the platforms were used for placing a forge to do something-r-other, where said forge would suck up all the oxygen and kill everyone in the hole. Most of these theories seem to be thrown out there in desperation, without thinking them through. It's how OIMP got where it is today.