Alternative Theory - Naval Stores - J.Steele

franklin said:
What about the 50 facts? I guess they mean nothing to you? That is a completely different story than the Tucson Artifacts.. Fifty "Facts" about the Tucson Artifacts - Calalus Calalus
Click to expand...

Total fiction.......

Of course you could use the space/time warp tunnel you discovered and go back in time ato bring us proof of all your fantastic claims.....
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
yet some people keep claiming a tree was backfilled that had been laying around for 200-300 years and it's just not possible..I'm sure all kinds of stuff got tossed in the hole at one time or another. Based on the pics that have been posted on here before the hole is probably closer to 100 feet wide at the top and at "some" points maybe 100 feet deep, but keep in mind those same pics show Dunfield using a 3'-4' wide scoop and only small areas of that hole is actually dull depth. There are pics of him and Blankenship standing down in it with sheer to slightly tapered walls of dirt on both sides of them... If they are off by just 10 feet to the right or left they miss it... No one has ever found a pic of the hole being 100' deep and 100' wide at the bottom. Not even 50' wide at the bottom in all directions... Dan and Robert.jpg
 

n2mini said:
yet some people keep claiming a tree was backfilled that had been laying around for 200-300 years and it's just not possible..I'm sure all kinds of stuff got tossed in the hole at one time or another. Based on the pics that have been posted on here before the hole is probably closer to 100 feet wide at the top and at "some" points maybe 100 feet deep, but keep in mind those same pics show Dunfield using a 3'-4' wide scoop and only small areas of that hole is actually dull depth. There are pics of him and Blankenship standing down in it with sheer to slightly tapered walls of dirt on both sides of them... If they are off by just 10 feet to the right or left they miss it... No one has ever found a pic of the hole being 100' deep and 100' wide at the bottom. Not even 50' wide at the bottom in all directions...View attachment 1897796
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was laying directly on the surface. I said it was laying near the surface (perhaps buried 2-5 feet deep) which is indeed possible. Just take a common fence post set 3 feet in the ground. Even though the stuff sticking above ground can break off and deteriorate, the part buried in the ground 3 feet down could still be there. If an excavator grabbed that soil it would also grab that piece of wood/post. And if that excavator dumped it down into the hole during the backfill process, then digging it back up 50 years later would not prove that it was originally down there. Because in fact, it wasn't.

The reality is that the strongest "evidence" anyone has ever provided has been carbon dated pieces of wood or small scraps of artifacts. Given the amount of excavation and backfilling that has occurred over the years, anything dug out of the pit today cannot be used as evidence of what was in the pit hundreds of years ago. And this should be very easy to understand.

As for the pictures, they showed a picture on the TV show in the first two seasons of how someone (I don't remember which explorer) had dug out a huge crater that looked to be 50 yards wide or more. It basically looked like a large funnel. Instead of going for precision, they decided to just excavate the whole area as if they were mining for limestone or something. It destroyed the whole area. So anything sitting just below the surface in about a 50 yard radius of the center of that crater could have been dumped down into it. And it is easy to believe that there would be a lot stuff sitting just below the surface in a 50 yard radius on Oak Island.

And it doesn't have to be a 50 yard radius. The picture you posted above shows enough excavation that anything sitting below the surface within about a 10 yard radius of that deep hole could have ended up back in the bottom of that hole.
 

Last edited:
n2mini said:
yet some people keep claiming a tree was backfilled that had been laying around for 200-300 years and it's just not possible..I'm sure all kinds of stuff got tossed in the hole at one time or another.
Click to expand...

It's not possible for a tree to lay around, but it is for a board or beam made from a tree to survive 200 to 300 years? They are both wood. In water (like a well) wood lasts and lasts - especially in a low-oxygen environment. There are 700+ year old logs on the bottom of the Great Lakes good enough for furniture and one of Benedict Arnold's Rev War flotilla (USS Spitfire) is intact on the bottom of Lake Champlain. So, back to the unexotic supposition that the "Money Pit" is just a glacial sink-hole: most likely a storm surge washes a bunch of flotsam into a pit (or one of the dozens of excavations looking for non-existent "treasure") and subsequent years of soil building, silt and erosion and back-filling by treasure-seekers bury it. That, or they hit some of the beams from the Halifax Company tunnels or other searcher platforms. No magic fairies required.

Uses of wood recovered from the bottom of the Great Lakes:

https://kdwoodscompany.com/resources/blog/water-logged.html
 

Last edited:
Think of it this way.... imagine that they dig down into the money pit and bring up a 1960 silver quarter. Would that mean that someone from 1960 must have time traveled back hundreds of years ago to bury it 100 feet below the ground? No. It would not. Could they actually find a 1960 quarter 100 feet down in the money pit? Yes, yes they could. So what would that imply? It would imply that stuff dug up from the money pit could have been unknowingly dumped there by other treasure hunters as they backfilled the holes they dug. So anything just below the surface around the area of the so-called money pit could end up in that hole. Including... old fence posts or other wood/artifacts. Which means that anything dug up from the pit today cannot be claimed to have been there originally.
 

smith cove.jpg

Would this be the pic your referring too? Can't say how deep it is of course but if the road beside it is 10' wide the top of the widest hole there looks to be no more then 100' wide.. and with the sloop of the walls that we can see it can't be but so deep to prevent cave in.. Just as in the other pic I posted, if Dunfield dug his hole as we see it, he couldn't just back fill it in and scoot over 15' and do it again as it would cave right in since it is not compacted...

Charlie P. You want me to believe that someone pre-MP buried some wood logs that were later dug up and reburied as back fill and now the Laginas found them and date tested them? Yeah, guess that is possible...The Halifax tunnels aren't old enough to fit the date "unless" they were using your pre-buried logs...
 

n2mini said:
View attachment 1897799

Would this be the pic your referring too? Can't say how deep it is of course but if the road beside it is 10' wide the top of the widest hole there looks to be no more then 100' wide.. and with the sloop of the walls that we can see it can't be but so deep to prevent cave in.. Just as in the other pic I posted, if Dunfield dug his hole as we see it, he couldn't just back fill it in and scoot over 15' and do it again as it would cave right in since it is not compacted...

Charlie P. You want me to believe that someone pre-MP buried some wood logs that were later dug up and reburied as back fill and now the Laginas found them and date tested them? Yeah, guess that is possible...The Halifax tunnels aren't old enough to fit the date "unless" they were using your pre-buried logs...
Click to expand...

No, that's not the picture but that its a good one. The picture I'm thinking of was taken from the ground. I saw it a long time ago but it was such a mess that it made a lasting impression on me.
 

I keep reading from some about the first writing of the MP being in 1866 yet the Truro Company was there in 1849 and the Halifax group came in 1866 so apparently there was plenty of word out there for other groups to be enticed to get involved.. My "guess" is there were stories written well before then, just hasn't been found.. As we all know not everything is written down some where to be able to find it...
 

franklin said:
What about the 50 facts? I guess they mean nothing to you? That is a completely different story than the Tucson Artifacts.. Fifty "Facts" about the Tucson Artifacts - Calalus Calalus
Click to expand...
50 made up statements called “Facts” by dubious persons selling pulp fiction for profit.
 

n2mini said:
Charlie P. You want me to believe that someone pre-MP buried some wood logs that were later dug up and reburied as back fill and now the Laginas found them and date tested them? Yeah, guess that is possible...The Halifax tunnels aren't old enough to fit the date "unless" they were using your pre-buried logs...
Click to expand...

I don't care what you choose to believe. I don't think anyone pre-MP buried anything and never claimed that. Ever. I think the "MP" prior to 1795 or so was likely a natural feature, may have included driftwood or fallen trees that got incorporated in a glacial sink-hole and never contained human relics until folks started poking around looking for treasure sometime between 1795 and 1840 or so. Since then the island has been so defiled by the (last count) 28 groups that have drilled dozens of shafts and dug in many locations so that it is now impossible to say what it used to be like or might contain.
 

will7782 said:
i find it amusing that...

wait. not amusing, but telling that one would consider a pine-tar processing operation to be covert.

the large continuing fires and the resulting smoke would be anything but "covert" LOL
Click to expand...

You seem to think there are those who want to keep the purpose of these structures and artifacts a "deep, dark SECRET..."

Not so much "covert" or "secret" but either military, therefore not for others' use, or private - also not for others' use. As stated earlier, such facilities in 18th Century coastal areas were "common as outhouses" and there being plenty of "public" facilities available, so what if this site, and/or any other, is just not widely advertised? And as such ordinary, not-special facilities such as this one became obsolete or no longer necessary...it was abandoned, forgotten about, plowed under...and have stories made up about.
 

DaveVanP said:
You seem to think there are those who want to keep the purpose of these structures and artifacts a "deep, dark SECRET..."

Not so much "covert" or "secret" but either military, therefore not for others' use, or private - also not for others' use. As stated earlier, such facilities in 18th Century coastal areas were "common as outhouses" and there being plenty of "public" facilities available, so what if this site, and/or any other, is just not widely advertised? And as such ordinary, not-special facilities such as this one became obsolete or no longer necessary...it was abandoned, forgotten about, plowed under...and have stories made up about.
Click to expand...

If we use the same measuring stick for this "theory" of a repair facility, simply prove it.

Those that come here and blast the show as a hoax and state how foolish people are that consider it plausible, then suggest alternative ideas WITH NO PROOF, are guilty of hypocrisy.

We should all be held to the same standard.
 

I have eight seasons of film that prove "The Curse of Oak Island" is a fraud. ;-) At least based on what has been presented so far. #1 - curses are not real. #2 - they aren't finding any evidence of treasure. #3 - they are dragging it out because it has a gullible or starved for entertainment audience.

https://www.history.com/shows/the-curse-of-oak-island
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

The Largest Treasure Hoard in History....

⬅️ Previous Thread

Oak Island Treasure Found?? Mmmmm Possibly maybe not!

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top