History Channel - Oak Island mini series January 5, 2014

[Sinbadthesailor]

Early Finds on Oak Island from Oak Island Treasure Company

Only a very short time ago, a young man found on the island a copper coin, weighing an ounce and a half, dated 1317, on which were various strange devices. Some years ago, a boat- swain's stone whistle was also found on the island, of a very ancient pattern, but it was accidentally broken by the finder and was thrown away.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[rutldge]

Hello Everyone, I'm new here. Just finished reading the thread up to this point. Very interesting debate going on about the island. I appreciate reading all the information and conflicting theories everyone has suggested. I too am skeptical of the show but have hope that it will all lead to it finally being resolved once and for all. I would like to see at least one legend turn out to be actually factual.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is why they haven't investigated the other points of Nolan's Cross, at least it hasn't been shown on the show yet. Or did I miss that on the show? Seems like they investigated one location and then from that point deduced where the Mercy point should be. I figure that if they investigated every such point on the cross, and found stones at each location, they would have another more definitive piece of the puzzle. By knowing the exact location of the other points on the cross, they could be much more accurate as to where the Mercy point actually is.

 

[Sinbadthesailor]

Early Finds on Oak Island from Oak Island Treasure Company

Only a very short time ago, a young man found on the island a copi)er coin, weighing an ounce and a half, dated 1317, on which were various strange devices. Some years ago, a boat- swain's stone whistle was also found on the island, of a very ancient pattern, but it was accidentally broken by the finder and was thrown away.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Interesting that there are so many differences between the two accounts, even though they were published only eight years apart. Certain things do match up though.

Of course, the Captain Kidd theory is out of vogue these days, but hey, it makes more sense than some of the newer ones.

 

[Smithbrown]

Thanks Rowanns for the information on the first mention of the Grail theory in relation to Nova Scotia. I am really at a loss to work out why it gained so much traction, so quickly, apart from general wish fulfillment. Whole edifices of Roslin-chapel inspired castle seem to have been built on the flimsiest of foundations.
Smithbrown

 

[skumpa]

I would start about 140 ft. behind the house, directly south, to the swamp. There is a rise of about 8 to 9 ft. there. Would be a great place to have an access to the underground. I also believe that, this is where they took some of the dirt and sand to make the outer dam, for Smith's cove. As I have stated before, Oak Island was actually two islands, or two islands thinly connected. The filled in canal could lead to under ground caves and or tunnels, or the other side of the water trap. The Stone (by the house on the North shore) on the beach and the Mercy Stone seem to make a straight line, when you overlay the cross with all the stones on it. If you go to Google Earth you can see what I am talking about, The outlines of the two islands.

 

[rowanns]

Thanks Rowanns for the information on the first mention of the Grail theory in relation to Nova Scotia. I am really at a loss to work out why it gained so much traction, so quickly, apart from general wish fulfillment. Whole edifices of Roslin-chapel inspired castle seem to have been built on the flimsiest of foundations.
Smithbrown

I think things gain traction when they represent a new idea. After that of course all manner of things happen. Some folks dismiss a theory outright, other folks embrace it wholeheartedly, both sides dig in, become cantankerous, and then of course accusations of deceit start flying.

We know the Norse were here at some point. Sinclair is linked to Norway - he owed his fealty to the Norwegian king. The Icelandic sagas did make their way to Norway. Did Sinclair get hold of them? Who knows really? It sure is fun trying to figure it all out though!

 

[Dave Rishar]

We know the Norse were here at some point. Sinclair is linked to Norway - he owed his fealty to the Norwegian king. The Icelandic sagas did make their way to Norway. Did Sinclair get hold of them? Who knows really? It sure is fun trying to figure it all out though!

It could have been even simpler than that - as has been noted in more than one of the sagas, Icelanders did travel to the Orkneys from time to time, normally as a stop while "seafaring" (raiding) around what is now the UK. At least during the time of Sigurd Eysteinsson, the Orkneys were known to be a fairly safe haven. The jarl always seemed happy to greet seafaring Icelanders, as they were basically still norsemen at that point, and thus were essentially cousins of a sort. This was several hundred years before Sinclair's time, but the groundwork had been established. I don't know that they were still doing this in the 14th century, but it's certainly possible.

I don't think the question is about whether or not Sinclair could have known about the New World. Norway was still in frequent contact with Iceland, and the Greenland settlements were still active. If this wasn't common knowledge at the time, it would have been something that could have been easily learned. I think it's safe to assume that if the information didn't find its way to him, he could have found his way to it quite easily had he wanted to. The real questions are deeper: why go in the first place? Who would run things while he was gone? Why were the remnants of the Templars interested in a man whose ancestors had denounced them? If they had treasure (and I don't believe that they did, as their wealth was largely tied up in loans and land, both of which disappearing when the order was dissolved), why did they not simply buy their own ships rather than bringing in an unknown?

And again, the jarls had their obligations and their power was derived from and could be taken away by the king. The sagas do give examples of jarls that "went rogue," and what happened to them - their holdings and goods were stripped from them, they were declared outlaws, and a price was generally placed on their heads. (If not an outright bounty, it was generally understood that killing one of these guys would get you in good with the king, and that carried its own rewards. That was how Gunnar - or was it Hrutr? Hell, it might have been both - gained some of their initial fame and wealth.) So if Sinclair did go to the New World, he did it either at the king's request, or with the king's blessing; otherwise, he would have had nothing to come back to but a bunch of people looking to kill him. If the king approved of his going, someone would have had to stand in for him while he was gone. (Who? And who would keep away his jealous relatives that wanted his title and holdings?) If the king had actually sent him...well, now this got a whole lot more interesting, and there should be a record of it somewhere. The simple answer to this, and the one that ties up all the loose ends fairly neatly, is that none of this actually happened.

I'm not sure where this fixation on Sinclair originally came from. The Templar theory is very difficult for me to believe, but it actually becomes somewhat more plausible if Sinclair is removed from it...still not really viable, but technically plausible.

This was all a lot easier 200 years ago when people were only looking for Kidd's loot.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Remember, Spanish coins from that era are not uncommon beach finds all along the east coast. I don't know for certain of any that have been found in Nova Scotia, but they've been found in Maine. I'd be very surprised if they haven't turned up east of there.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/t...-spanish-2014-1781-reale-very-good-shape.html

I don't consider this to be 100% definitive proof on its own, but having no reason to distrust this poster, and keeping in mind my own observations and beliefs on the topic, I'm willing to accept that Spanish coins have been found for certain in Nova Scotia. Again, I would have been very surprised if they had not.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'd morning Dave, coffee ? you posted -- I often find myself frustrated by translations because something is always lost (or added*) in the process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
so true Dave, 3specially with the mechanical translators i (electronic ) in use today. The context factor is not in there.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Dave my friend, a refill? as for lack of facts check on My Real de Tayopa. All evidence and records were deliberatly suppressed or hidden in the "Right to know" Jesuit files in Rome.

Today even wicki states that it was simply a smokey Legend, yet I finally found and own it.

Tayopa


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Dave Rishar]

G'd morning Dave, coffee ? you posted -- I often find myself frustrated by translations because something is always lost (or added*) in the process. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ so true Dave, 3specially with the mechanical translators i (electronic ) in use today. The context factor is not in there. Don Jose de La Mancha

Even in non-electronic translations, things can get screwy. A good example would be the translation of the Njal Saga that I mentioned earlier - the translator was from the UK and was translating for a UK audience. His terminology was perfectly accurate but could have confused an American...which it initially did, in my case.

Dave my friend, a refill? as for lack of facts check on My Real de Tayopa. All evidence and records were deliberatly suppressed or hidden in the "Right to know" Jesuit files in Rome. Today even wicki states that it was simply a smokey Legend, yet I finally found and own it. Tayopa Don Jose de La Mancha

However (and this is a rather big however), it makes sense. It's logical. I can see a reason for making a mine disappear, I can see a way to make it happen, and I can see a reason why the original owners never got back to reclaim it.

The Money Pit never made a lot of sense to me as anything other than a hoax, or at best a misunderstanding that's grown in the telling. The more that I poke at it, the more problems that I find with it.

When I stated earlier that I was considering changing my way of looking at the whole thing, I was indirectly condemning it even further. I was saying that almost every single specific element of every story was either extremely questional, completely illogical, or could be conclusively debunked, and that the various versions of the stories had changed so much over time that not a single one could be reasonably considered accurate. Basically, I admitted that the whole legend is so full of holes that I can't focus on any single thing without concluding that there's nothing to it, so now I'm forced to analyze bigger "chunks" of each story instead, glossing over single inconsistencies because there are so many things that are wrong with it.

Ultimately, I wasn't prepared to operate like that.

I don't think that we're quite there yet with any of the existing theories. In the meantime, people will keep punching holes in Oak Island, and who knows? Maybe one of them will lead to something and I'll look like the fool that I am. We'll see.

A belated thanks for the coffee offers, by the way. Swing shift is killing me.

 

[skumpa]

Where did everybody go

 

[Dave Rishar]

Perhaps they're off treasure hunting?

I suspect that a few of us here have made our way onto multiple ignore lists by now. If this is the case, things may quiet down a bit around here.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Nah Dave, just going over mi USB Swiss accounts. I think that they put the decimal 3 points too far to the right on one.. Even though it is one of my smaller accounts, I like to make sure that they don't get tooo careless.

or

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[skumpa]

Well, I hope, just in case I was right, I get a little credit and maybe something extra. lol

 

[rowanns]

Perhaps they're off treasure hunting?

I suspect that a few of us here have made our way onto multiple ignore lists by now. If this is the case, things may quiet down a bit around here.

Hey Dave, now I wouldn't ignore you! If they keep punching any more holes in Oak Island, they'll be liable to sink the thing!

One thing though, after the suppression of the Knights Templar, it wasn't exactly the most politically expedient thing to do to come out and offer support to the Order. This is not to say, however, that the Order was not supported. The sentences handed out in England for example were quite light and to my knowledge, nothing was done in Scotland or Ireland really. Seems to me that would make better sense to go on record as appeasing the Pope, but actually support the Order behind the scenes. After all, we still don't know for certain where their loot went and they had wealth, not to mention connections throughout the Middle East, where map making was certainly ahead of Europe and knowledge was not under the stranglehold of Rome.

And I'm not convinced of your argument that Sinclair risked going against the Norwegian king on any ventures he may have taken to the New World. European history of that time is riddled with revolt, recrimination, switched allegiances, secret pacts, and so on. That was just standard politics back then.

Norway was in a mess during this time period and if I'm not mistaken losing its real power to Denmark, so in the midst of that, who knows if Sinclair really had to be closely aligned with the Norwegian throne after all.

Also Dave, you state that most of the Templar wealth was wrapped up in loans and the like and you state that as simple fact.

You do realize don't you, that this is certainly disputed, as the King of France wanted to get his mitts on the Templar's wealth in addition to wanting to erase his massive indebtedness to them.

It's too easy to simply dismiss the notion of their wealth as saying it was wrapped up on loans. That was not the case.

Also, you state regarding Sinclair, "The simple answer to this, and the one that ties up all the loose ends fairly neatly, is that none of this actually happened."

At what point does a theory get dismissed merely because the loose ends didn't align properly at the first kick of the can? As always, I understand and fully support your scepticism. But scepticism can make a person blind to other possibilities and simple answers to events of hundreds of years ago are no answers at all.

Good lord, up until the Norse site was discovered in Newfoundland, Columbus held the crown of discovery for the New World and no amount of discourse could change academic's minds. The usual argument was, "Where is the proof", "there's no proof". Then there finally was proof.

Funny thing about that proof, the search for it started with a theory backed by certain writings that others had so cavalierly dismissed.

Cheers!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

How about some fresh, hot, coffee Skumpa and any other that cares to join us ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[skumpa]

Thanks

 

[Dave Rishar]

Good to see you posting here again, Rowanns.

One thing though, after the suppression of the Knights Templar, it wasn't exactly the most politically expedient thing to do to come out and offer support to the Order. This is not to say, however, that the Order was not supported. The sentences handed out in England for example were quite light and to my knowledge, nothing was done in Scotland or Ireland really. Seems to me that would make better sense to go on record as appeasing the Pope, but actually support the Order behind the scenes.

There's a difference between support and non-interference. The whole thing was Philip's baby and the pope wanted no part of it; he was basically forced to humor the king in order to avoid a war with France. (He'd actually found them all innocent in 1308, and had told Philip as much.) The sentences handed out by everyone besides France were almost always light, and were usually non-existant. Everyone knew that the whole thing was a crock of crap and acted accordingly.

However, there wasn't much support for the Templars before the charges had even been made - they'd lost their primary mission, donations were declining, and the presence of a large standing army that could freely cross borders undoubtedly made plenty of rulers just a bit nervous. I don't think that they were hated exactly, but I don't think that too many people missed them after they were gone.

After all, we still don't know for certain where their loot went and they had wealth, not to mention connections throughout the Middle East, where map making was certainly ahead of Europe and knowledge was not under the stranglehold of Rome.

We don't know for certain where every single bit of their loot and wealth went, but we can take a pretty good guess at where most of it went because its fate was recorded: Philip certainly helped himself to his share of it in France (mostly in the form of confiscating land and ignoring debts), and the pope gave just about everything else that existed on paper to the Hospitallers.

Was there stuff that existed off the books? It's safe to assume that there was, but I wouldn't think that it would be more than a small fraction of their total worth.

And I'm not convinced of your argument that Sinclair risked going against the Norwegian king on any ventures he may have taken to the New World. European history of that time is riddled with revolt, recrimination, switched allegiances, secret pacts, and so on. That was just standard politics back then. Norway was in a mess during this time period and if I'm not mistaken losing its real power to Denmark, so in the midst of that, who knows if Sinclair really had to be closely aligned with the Norwegian throne after all.

Sinclair was a jarl, or earl if you prefer it anglicized. He did not inherit the title. It was given by the king and could be easily taken away by the same. You're right - there was plenty of intrigue during these times, and I can even find examples of jarls doing their own thing and pissing off the king. The result? The king declared them outlaws, took their titles, and ordered them to forfeit all lands and goods. In essence, they had to leave with whatever they could carry and not come back, and some enterprising Icelander or Norman (or even a thrall) might just come along and kill them at a later date without fear of retribution. It's worth noting that when Sinclair died, he still had his title, so whatever he did during his life did not displease the king too much, or he would have died an outlaw, not a jarl.

Also Dave, you state that most of the Templar wealth was wrapped up in loans and the like and you state that as simple fact. You do realize don't you, that this is certainly disputed, as the King of France wanted to get his mitts on the Templar's wealth in addition to wanting to erase his massive indebtedness to them. It's too easy to simply dismiss the notion of their wealth as saying it was wrapped up on loans. That was not the case.

If I owe $100,000 to somebody and I can make that debt go away at no cost to me, did I lose a $100,000 debt, or did I earn $100,000? In practice there is no difference - I'm $100,000 richer. Philip likely viewed it the same way. Getting out from under those debts was essentially the same as gaining wealth.

Most of the Templar's wealth was not tied up in loans and real estate, which was how they acquired said wealth in the first place? Interesting. What do you base this belief on? Why is my belief not the case?

Also, you state regarding Sinclair, "The simple answer to this, and the one that ties up all the loose ends fairly neatly, is that none of this actually happened." At what point does a theory get dismissed merely because the loose ends didn't align properly at the first kick of the can? As always, I understand and fully support your scepticism. But scepticism can make a person blind to other possibilities and simple answers to events of hundreds of years ago are no answers at all. Good lord, up until the Norse site was discovered in Newfoundland, Columbus held the crown of discovery for the New World and no amount of discourse could change academic's minds. The usual argument was, "Where is the proof", "there's no proof". Then there finally was proof. Funny thing about that proof, the search for it started with a theory backed by certain writings that others had so cavalierly dismissed. Cheers!

But there was proof, even if nobody wanted to believe it. What proof is there for Sinclair that doesn't involve wild speculation?