A Possible Meaning for the La Formule Cipher

[gjb]

I've never been entirely happy about the 90 ft (Kempton) cipher stone and was equally dubious when the La Formule cipher made its appearance, particularly as it seems there’s no real proof that it pertains to Oak Island, and there's no saying that it couldn't be a fake.

There's also some question about what it might be revealing. The following seems to be a fair translation of the text as widely presented:

Halt, don't be timid. Dig at 40 feet with the angle 45 degrees. The shaft at 522 feet at your entry. The corridor at 1065 feet reaches the chamber.

La Formule. Halte. Ne terrer pas. Creuser a quarante pied avec a angle de quarante cinq degre. La hampe a cinq cent deus pied a vous entre. Le correidor a un mil soisante cinq pied atteinte la chambre. ... la valeur.

The above French language solution is by Kevin Knight and Nadda Aldarrab. See:

Blockhouse Blog: La Formule Cipher Investigation

For me, the test would be whether the plaintext as above might fit with my suggested Oak Island ground plan (geometry). It does, but this might be coincidence.

My attempts to reproduce the original Oak Island ground plan predate the publication of La Formule by some ten years. The overall island geometry as I see it, and much as originally published in 2002, is shown below.

As noted in previous posts, given the internal detail of the treasure maps, I imagine that the deposit may have been made to the north and slightly east of the Money Pit, potentially at the centre of the rhombus shown at the northeast of the island on the plan.

This might be better appreciated in the extract below which attempts to place all the reported and well known ground features on a single geometrical plan that ties them all together.

One significant feature of this plan is the suggestion of a Geometrical Swamp and the possibility that the deposit was made by a tunnel from its centre. The origin of the tunnel is the point marked ‘A’ and extends magnetic eastwards for a length of precisely 60 rods (990 feet) to the point marked ‘D’, and from this point to the ‘X’ that might mark the spot is 5 rods (82.5 feet) bearing magnetic south.
.
It happens that were such a passage broken into precisely mid-way (at point 'B') by tunnelling at 45 degrees then the distance to the chamber entrance from the point the corridor is breached (at point 'C') would be 522 feet, and the corridor length to the centre of the chamber would be 1065 feet (the distances in feet being rounded up).

Note that 790 links is 521.4 feet (522 feet) and 1612.5 links is 1064.25 feet (1065 feet).

This possibility leads me to question my doubts about the 90 feet stone. My thought has always been that, if genuine, the intention may have been to bury this stone above the deposit. However, maybe this would have been too obvious were it accidentally unearthed and it was left in the Money Pit as an indicator of the depth of the deposit from the surface. At the time, that could have been about at sea level (above the water line).

I imagine that the La Formule cipher, if genuine, would be an indicator that the ‘X’ is at the right spot rather than being instructions for accessing the deposit. A tunnel at 45 degrees would not provide an easy incline to remove a sizeable and potentially heavy deposit.

Note that digging at the ‘X’ would not bring you crashing through the roof of the chamber onto the treasure but slightly overlapping it, at the rear, by the radius of the shaft being dug.

As said, it could be coincidence, but, nevertheless, I find it a strange coincidence as the length of the tunnel and the position of the 'X' are a consequence of geometry - they were not fixed by me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Too many lines.

Why bother with that level of involvement?

 

[gjb]

Too many lines. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The Money Pit is so deep. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The Smith’s Cove water catchment is so big. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The flood tunnel is so long. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The work would have required coffer dams. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Nolan’s Cross is a massive undertaking. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The stone triangle is difficult to lay out. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Surveying the ground would be difficult. Why bother with that level of involvement?

To administer the project would be huge. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Oak Island is so far out of the way.Why bother with that level of involvement?


And you think that drawing lines of a piece of paper would be bothersome!

You think undertaking a massive engineering project the right way would be bothersome?

You think doing the job the way he wanted, rather than the way you'd want to see it done, would be bothersome?

 

[freeman]

When someone quotes Zena Halpern, no one bothers to read any further.

 

[gjb]

When someone quotes Zena Halpern, no one bothers to read any further.

Frankly, I expect nothing else from you. However, the value of material lies in what it is and in what it says, not in who presents it or what they deem it to be, or even who owns it at any given time. Provenance in these cases is rarely straightforward.

It's a common mistake, and it's about time people here began to appreciate this. Keep your views about the material and your views about the person entirely separate.

 

[ECS]

... Provenance in these cases is rarely straightforward...

Especially when the alleged "original" source material is never examined or analyzed by the professional academic community dur to the "originals" having been destroyed, lost, discarded, or most likely having only existed in the imagination of the quasi history author.

 

[gjb]

Especially when the alleged "original" source material is never examined or analyzed by the professional academic community due to the "originals" having been destroyed, lost, discarded ...

Can't argue with that ...

... or most likely having only existed in the imagination of the quasi history author.

... but that, though eminently possible, is surely value judgement.

After all, while a copy of the original doesn't have the same intrinsic value it can still convey the same message. I agree that a healthy suspicion is warranted, but outright rejection could be more risky than holding the material in abeyance. The possibility of a hoax is ever present, but is there truly nothing in the message, or in its nature, that might suggest otherwise? To determine that, one should, at the least, be prepared to investigate impartially, that is, irrespective of who is involved.

 

[ECS]

... The possibility of a hoax is ever present, but is there truly nothing in the message, or in its nature, that might suggest otherwise?...

Scott Wolter's remarks concerning the Oak Island map of Zena Halpern: "This map is clearly a copy drawn on modern paper that at best dates back to the 1700's...This is a picture, or a copy, of the original. It can also be a second or third generation copy of the original, we simply don't know" November 16, 2016
Somewhat reminiscent of Diana Jean Muir's "Sinclair journals", and it should be noted that Muir questioned many of Halpern's claims.
Ironic on several levels.
Ronald Ruh, author of "THE SCROLLS OF ONTERA", friend and mentor to Zena Halpern, who took her on hikes in the Catskills to show her carved message boulders, and, in 1968, discovered while scuba diving in the Hudson River, a garden ornament that contained a certain brass box, stated: (What) "Ms Halpern never knew, was the Oak Island map that came into my possession in 2015 was NEVER in anyway connected to the Cremona Document or the medieval Knights Templar. The Oak Island map is fabrication, most likely created by Bill Jackson".
Remember, it was NOT presented as a fake on "THE CURSE OF OAK ISLAND" TV "reality" program, but touted this obvious fake on modern paper as real.
Yes, gjb, "The possibility of a hoax is ever present".

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

The Money Pit is so deep. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The Smith’s Cove water catchment is so big. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The flood tunnel is so long. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The work would have required coffer dams. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Nolan’s Cross is a massive undertaking. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The stone triangle is difficult to lay out. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Surveying the ground would be difficult. Why bother with that level of involvement?

To administer the project would be huge. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Oak Island is so far out of the way.Why bother with that level of involvement?


And you think that drawing lines of a piece of paper would be bothersome!

You think undertaking a massive engineering project the right way would be bothersome?

You think doing the job the way he wanted, rather than the way you'd want to see it done, would be bothersome?

How's all that working out for you so far? How about - there is not now nor was there anything there. Simple. And proven dozens of times over by almost 30 attempts.

 

[Dave Rishar]

The Money Pit is so deep. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The Smith’s Cove water catchment is so big. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The flood tunnel is so long. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The work would have required coffer dams. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Nolan’s Cross is a massive undertaking. Why bother with that level of involvement?

The stone triangle is difficult to lay out. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Surveying the ground would be difficult. Why bother with that level of involvement?

To administer the project would be huge. Why bother with that level of involvement?

Oak Island is so far out of the way.Why bother with that level of involvement?

Given the lack of forensic evidence to guide us, another approach to evaluating the story is to apply logic. In this context, all of those questions that you mentioned are legitimate. If a theory is proposed and a question is asked in response to it, and there's no logical answer to that question, that doesn't make it a bad question. Instead, it raises concerns about the theory.

As an example, you mentioned that you're not entirely happy with those cipher stones. I'm not either, the main reason being that their existence makes absolutely no sense at all. Why would a cipher stone be there in the first place? It would be at best extra labor that's unnecessary and at worst a liability. There's no upside for the person hiding the treasure.

You think undertaking a massive engineering project the right way would be bothersome?

In the case of the Oak Island legend, I think that undertaking a massive engineering project is, like the cipher stone above, at best extra labor that's unnecessary and at worst a liability - and it has become a liability, if it turns out that something was hidden there.

 

[gjb]

Scott Wolter's remarks concerning the Oak Island map of Zena Halpern: "This map is clearly a copy drawn on modern paper that at best dates back to the 1700's...This is a picture, or a copy, of the original. It can also be a second or third generation copy of the original, we simply don't know" November 16, 2016.

I take it that this is purely an aside, as otherwise you appear to be attempting to discredit the La Formule cipher by referencing arguments against the ‘Cremona’ Oak Island map as if the two documents are interchangeable. They’re not. They should be assessed independently. The validity or otherwise of the one should have no bearing on the other.

It would seem, then, that you continue to argue that Zena Halpern’s questionable credentials and activities justify denouncing anything and everything she has ever touched. This doesn’t follow.

While I have grave doubts about Halpern’s material and pronouncements, I won’t go so far as to convert a possibility into a certainty on the basis of a suspicion. I must leave that to others.

You reject where I choose to treat with great caution. We simply have different views about the risks we’re prepared to take in the search for answers. I risk wasting my time on a futile quest, you risk rejecting a potential truth on the basis of a value judgement, if not pre-judgement.

Outright rejection tends to be final, absolute, and could be disastrous for research if incorrect, but, whatever works for you.

 

[gjb]

How's all that working out for you so far? How about - there is not now nor was there anything there. Simple. And proven dozens of times over by almost 30 attempts.

You certainly have a truly relaxed attitude to proof. You could do society a great favour by never sitting on a jury.

Finding nothing at the Money Pit doesn't prove there was nothing there, though I consider that likely. It certainly doesn't prove that nothing was ever deposited elsewhere on the island.

If they're looking in the wrong place then it's not at all surprising that they're finding nothing.

 

[gjb]

In the case of the Oak Island legend, I think that undertaking a massive engineering project is, like the cipher stone above, at best extra labor that's unnecessary and at worst a liability - and it has become a liability, if it turns out that something was hidden there.[/COLOR]

I can’t deny that the apparent extent of the undertaking is something of a puzzle to me. Perhaps there’s been some misreading of the evidence. However, what was left on the ground was presumably left to be found or, at least, had a function during project implementation.

As shown above (OP), it’s my feeling that the ground markers were not placed at random but could be inter-related by an underlying geometrical plan, though, as you intimate, to what purpose? Might they be directing attention to a specific point on the island? But why do that? Would that not defeat the object?

I fall back on the possibility of this being a form of contingency measure in the event something should happen to the originator. That is, with a knowledge of the project and knowledge of the ground markers the true focus of the enterprise might be ascertained by someone holding the clues.

The only safeguard would then lie in not making the task at all easy - and I reckon that's been achieved!

 

[ECS]

...
It would seem, then, that you continue to argue that Zena Halpern’s questionable credentials and activities justify denouncing anything and everything she has ever touched...

Fruit from the poisoned tree than rarely falls far from that tree.

 

[gjb]

Fruit from the poisoned tree than rarely falls far from that tree.

I fully understand the sentiment, but that's still allowing emotion to rule thinking. Maybe you should also consider not sitting on a jury.

 

[IN DA HOLE]

Here is the solution, not your geometry class from hell LOL

They didn't dig at a 45-degree angle TOO BAD the treasure is lost forever.


The formula. Stop. Do not dig. Dig forty feet at a forty-five-degree angle. The shaft is five hundred feet from you. The corridor has a thousand foot five feet reaching the room. ... the value AKA the loot.

 

[gjb]

Here is the solution, not your geometry class from hell LOL

They didn't dig at a 45-degree angle TOO BAD the treasure is lost forever.

The formula. Stop. Do not dig. Dig forty feet at a forty-five-degree angle. The shaft is five hundred feet from you. The corridor has a thousand foot five feet reaching the room. ... the value AKA the loot.

Am I correct in thinking you're assuming that 'Ne terrer pas' was intended to be 'Ne terrier pas', despite this being a noun? I admit I'm puzzled as to why 'terrer' might have been used in this context. Anyway, this piece itself is a French class from hell, so there's room for interpretation. My comment on his school report? He could do better.

 

[ECS]

I’ve never been entirely happy about the 90 ft (Kempton) cipher stone and was equally dubious when the La Formule cipher made its appearance, particularly as it seems there’s no real proof that it pertains to Oak Island, and there’s no saying that it couldn’t be a fake.

There’s also some question about what it might be revealing. The following seems to be a fair translation of the text as widely presented:

“Halt, don’t be timid. Dig at 40 feet with the angle 45 degrees. The shaft at 522 feet at your entry. The corridor at 1065 feet reaches the chamber.”

La Formule. Halte. Ne terrer pas. Creuser a quarante pied avec a angle de quarante cinq degre. La hampe a cinq cent deus pied a vous entre. Le correidor a un mil soisante cinq pied atteinte la chambre. ... la valeur.;.

The La Formule was claimed to been found behind a stone in Daniel McInnis house, but was never mentioned until the McInnis sisters book which claims in was found among Jim McInnis's papers in 1996.
There is no direct connection to Oak Island except for it being included with those found McInnis papers and wishful expectations.
What it is connected by having the same exact symbols is the Reverend Kempton Cipher, which Kempton claims was given to him on 1906 but made public in 1949, 20 years before the "discovery" of the La Formule Cipher in the papers of Jim McInnis.
The La Formule Ciphers having NO DIRECT connection to Oak Island appear to be an example force fitting to support one's speculative suppositions.

 

[ECS]

I fully understand the sentiment, but that's still allowing emotion to rule thinking.
Maybe you should also consider not sitting on a jury.

Reckon you should follow your own advice considering your acceptance of circumstantial fabricated speculation as fact.

 

[gjb]

There is no direct connection to Oak Island except for it being included with those found McInnis papers and wishful expectations.

You state this as fact, as if you know it to be incontrovertible. However, unlike you, I lack the arrogance to claim that I know any of the answers. I try to work things out from whatever might appear to be relevant, dismissing nothing that could hold the merest clue to the solution to the mystery.

On the other hand, attempting to work things out appears to be outdated here. Anyone can say that something is right and it becomes so, particularly you.

You clearly believe that you know intuitively what is fact and what is not, and I see nobody here challenging this, so, once more, I'll leave the forum to benefit from your claimed omniscience. After all, you are clearly a paragon of right thinking.