History Channel - Oak Island mini series January 5, 2014

Last edited:
Well for a slight change of subject is there any new news as to when the show resumes? (I mean TV show, not the witty banter appearing here):laughing7:
 

Last edited:
Looking forward to season 2 (appears to be November). I hope they finish searching the swamp and we don't find out it reflooded and they have up on it.

Any predictions for what we'll see in season 2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Geez they milking it. I didn't think they could flog a dead horse even further. But nothing surprises me today with the standard of documentary makers are about.

I can't see why the great obsession with oak Island Personally. Its like the more famous the treasure legend the more moths it attracts. The real money is in keeping the myth alive and not whats allegedly in the hole. As with other famous treasure legends which has become the Provence of egocentrics that will argue until blue in face for ever and day over details like a religion.

The Irony of all this Canada has much more viable other treasure legends.


Crow
 

Crow said:
Geez they milking it. I didn't think they could flog a dead horse even further. But nothing surprises me today with the standard of documentary makers are about.

I can't see why the great obsession with oak Island Personally. Its like the more famous the treasure legend the more moths it attracts. The real money is in keeping the myth alive and not whats allegedly in the hole. As with other famous treasure legends which has become the Provence of egocentrics that will argue until blue in face for ever and day over details like a religion.

The Irony of all this Canada has much more viable other treasure legends.

Crow
Click to expand...
There's something about the coconut fibers that make people think potential pirates. Non-treasure enthusiasts (and some treasure enthusiasts) get a chubby when thinking about pirate treasure. It's romantic. Combine that with the possibility of the holy grail or the ark of the covenant and it's easy to see why there's such a fascination no matter how unlikely anything of that significance will be found.
 

Dr. Meh said:
There's something about the coconut fibers that make people think potential pirates. Non-treasure enthusiasts (and some treasure enthusiasts) get a chubby when thinking about pirate treasure. It's romantic. Combine that with the possibility of the holy grail or the ark of the covenant and it's easy to see why there's such a fascination no matter how unlikely anything of that significance will be found.
Click to expand...

Pirates are so 18th century. These days it's Templars, or Freemasons, or possibly Vikings...or even all three. :thumbsup:

More seriously, this does raise an interesting point...that until a few decades ago, every version of this story and every piece of evidence recovered pointed directly at pirates. Now that this theory isn't in vogue with the cool kids anymore, evidence of pirates doesn't seem to turn up much. The parts of the stories that used to imply pirates (the old sailor's tale, McGinnis's original ideas, etc.) don't get a lot of play these days either. All of the earlier evidence that hinted at pirates has either been twisted around to mean something else, or is just dropped entirely when discussing the newer theories.

As I've said before, I have a theory about all of this but not too many people will like it.
 

I think people should focus on the start of the original story? The story of 18-year-old Daniel McGinnis paddling over in a Canoe to Oak island. Some versions say 16 year old. Many stories lead us to believe that the island was abandoned? Knowing who really was Daniel McGininis and the early history of the island might dispel many later claims about the site.

Crow
 

You might want to look at these earlier newspaper articles. Collectively called the Liverpool transcripts 1857-1861

liverpool.jpg liverpool2.jpg liverpool3.jpg

They help build up part of a picture of what was generally believed back then.

Crow
 

Last edited:
Not much gleaned from articles except the reporters obvious bias that Captain Kidd had anything to do with it!
.. Now that brings us to the theory, that all theories precede the finding of evidence that supports it and all else is forgotten! Sorry, this theory is just as bad as any of them and suffers this same exact fault... "Everything you know is wrong!":laughing7:
 

The sinkhole theory is supported by a two week study by scientists who had no time to do any digging... . And I am also asked to believe 150 years of treasure hunters digging has only turned up evidence of previous treasure hunters digging and not evidence of the hiders of treasure! All other evidence is supposed to be a hoax to keep investors paying... It follows then that a brother or the producers planted the Spanish coin and coconut fibers...
This theory is only good for a treasure hunter to believe when he runs out of money, otherwise there is plenty of evidence to keep him digging!
 

It seems that a few others have a theory similar to mine - namely, that there was never any treasure there and the "finds" that are "recovered" only ever seem to support the prevailing theory because they weren't actually found. What's more, very few of those objects can be located today and/or were ever photographed, leading me to wonder whether or not they existed in the first place. The "40 Feet Down" stone comes immediately to mind here, but there are plenty of other examples of this phenomenon.

For the record, I don't think that the fibers were planted, but I have yet to see any evidence at all that they exist in the amounts mentioned. As for the coin, who knows? It's TV. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll go on to say that I'd expect more of those coins to be found, as they're relatively common on the eastern coast of North America. (And yes, they do turn up that far north.) Of course, that coin doesn't really support the more popular theories, but hey...it's a documented find, so I was personally pretty happy to see it.
 

Hello All

I am lazy today so will steal a comment about the alleged discovery of the so called cypher stone? From my old scallywag of my good friend Hardluck. He raises some excellent points.



I also have a issue with the so called stone that was allegedly discovered in 1805 when Anthony Vaughan was looking for backers. Strange don't you think?

And John Smith must of be the dumbest treasure hunter in history to used the alleged ciphers stone as part of his fireplace?

You can see in following three examples of the alleged cipher message. We have Mr Ranville claiming he has deciphered it from the above copy that does not match earlier drawing of what was on the stone?

The question springs to mind was there any stone to start with?

The Following comments are from a historical researcher in Canada.

The Inscribed Stone


The time line for the money pit?s inscribed stone has never been completely identified in any single book. You might be surprised to learn of some details, especially of quickly unfolding series of suspicious events which happened during the 1860s.

The implied historic time line which takes us to 1864 is the following:
A stone is found at the 80 ft level. Specific year and by whom is unknown; however is thought to be in 1805 by the Onslow Company. (Ref Halifax Sun and Advisor dated 2 July 1862)

John Smith comes to possess the stone, specific year is unknown. (Ref: PANS microfiche 10599)

John Smith places the stone in an outside course in the back part of his fireplace during the building his new home in 1810. (Ref PANS microfiche 10599)

John Smith supposedly tells George Cooke of the stone and where it is located during 1849. (Ref: PANS microfiche 10599)

John Smith dies in Aug 1857. (PANS MG 100 Volume 230 #32-32E microfiche 9809 - Descendants of the Smith and Floyd Families)

After John?s passing, the property and house falls into the possession of Anthony Graves, but is used as a treasure hunting headquarters by the Truro Group, then by the Oak Island Association. Neither Anthony Graves nor anyone except for George Cooke, knows of the stone?s location. (ref PANS microfiche 10599)

THE RECORD of EVENTS:
Liverpool Transcript 1857
does not mention the inscribed stone.

Liverpool Transcript Sep 1861
?The digger, Patrick? letter does not mention the inscribed stone, but does describe in detail the Onslow work, specifically them sinking a crowbar at 93ft into a wooden platform. Patrick self proclaims himself as ?one who knows?.

Liverpool Transcript Aug 1861
does not mention the stone.

Nova Scotian 20 Sep 1861
does not mention the stone.

Liverpool Transcript Dec 1861
does not mention the inscribed stone.

Halifax Sun and Advisor dated 2 July 1862
This paper contains the first mention of the inscribed stone. The author was J.B. McCully who drafted the letter on 2 June 1862. While offering information which described conditions as supposedly found during the 1805 excavation, McCully mentions the following:
?Some of them [layers] were charcoal, some putty, and one at 80 feet was a stone cut square, two feet long and about a foot thick, with several characters cut on it?.
No further details are provided other than this fleeting mention.

This above disclosure by McCully does not appear to have gained any interest.


Rambles Among the Blue noses Aug 1862 by Andrew Spedon. McCully is interviewed by Andrew Spedon for his book,. McCully does not mention the stone to Spedon.

Halifax Colonist 2 Jan 1864
Additional details of the stone are revealed through an anonymous letter detailing the history of the treasure hunt. The letter is signed by ?A Member, Truro Dec 20th 1863?. Research comparing the manuscript letter against a subsequent letter by George Cooke, Secretary of the Oak Island Association, found a positive match in hand writing style. George Cooke says he personally spoke with Smith about 14 years early, thus 1849 (Ref: PANS microfiche 10599).

The only additional information contained in this article is the following:
?As it was preserved in the family of Mr. Smith it may be seen by the curious at the present day.?

A letter from John Hunter Duvar, Secretary to the Historical Society of Nova Scotia, to George Cook - 2 Jan 1864
John knows that George is the anonymous author and asks ?May I beg, in the name of the Society, to be informed with the name of the person in whose possession this stone is??

A letter by George Cooke to John Hunter-Duvar, replying to the letter of 2 Jan 1864, dated 27 Jan 1864
?Our making inquiries since receipt of your letter, I find that the chimney has been boxed around by a wooden partition, and that a flight of stairs back up near where the stone is inserted. I was not aware of this before. This may prevent the stone being got at without trouble?

George also discusses deciphering the stone and it is very important to the Oak Island Association. George concluded the letter with the following:

?At the time I saw the stone, I noticed that there were some rudely cut letters, figures, or characters upon it. I cannot recollect which, but they appear as if they had been scraped out by a blunt instrument rather than cut by a sharp one.?
George also provides testimony from John Smith about the stone's discovery. Smith merely saw the stone come from below ground with Smith implying he was not present below ground on that day.
After the date from the above letter, the exact chain of custody for this inscribed stone is clouded.


James DeMille's "Treasure of the Sea? 1872
DeMille is a summer resident of Chester Basin during the later 1860s, he lived on Oak Island for a summer, and possessed firsthand knowledge of the underground workings through his own observations. (In October, 1865, James DeMille, M.A. was added to replace McCulloch who had died in March, 1865, and James Leichti was added as tutor in Modern Languages. DeMille remained until his death in 1880 and Leichti until 1901 [Ref: http://earthsciences.dal.ca/aboutus/otr/otr-ch02.html ]

James Leichti is thought to have (at some point) translated the stone which read: "Ten feet below are two million pounds buried."

DeMille was kind enough to note the stone was already removed from the fireplace when he arrived on the island. DeMille also mentioned that up until this point, no person was able to decode the stone. Considering DeMille?s interest in the island, and for DeMille to have been Leichti?s boss at Dalhousie University, DeMille ought to have known if Leichti translated the stone prior to 1872.


Undated letter by William Blair (private collection)
?Jefferson W. McDonald, who first mentioned Oak Island to me in 1893, worked there under George Mitchell?.Mr. McDonald, who was a carpenter by trade, also told of taking down a partition in Smith?s house, in order that he with others might examine the characters cut on the stone used in the jamb of a fire place in the house. The characters were there all right, but no person present could decipher them.?

George Mitchell was the superintendant of works for the Oak Island Association, formed 3 April 1861 and ceased before 29 March 1865. RV Harris wrote ?About 1865-1866 the stone was removed and taken to Halifax. Among those who worked to remove the stone was one Jefferson W. MacDonald.?

1894 Prospectus ? Oak Island Treasure Company
This is the first instance in print to mention a translation of the stone. It implies for someone (an expert) of Halifax made the translation.

?Afterwards, it was placed in the jamb of a fireplace that Mr. Smith was building in his house, and while there was viewed by thousands of people. Many years afterwards, it was taken out of the chimney and taken to Halifax to have, if possible, the characters deciphered".

One of the experts gave his reading of the inscription as follows: "Ten feet below are two million pounds buried." We give this statement for what it is worth, but by no means claim that this is the correct interpretation. Apart from this, however, the fact remains that the history and description of the stone as above given have never been disputed.?

The Oak Island Treasure CHARLES B. DRISCOLL, (1929:Jan./June) p.685
?The stone was shown to everyone who visited the island in those days. Smith built this stone into his fireplace, with the strange characters outermost, so that visitors might see and admire it. Many years after his death, the stone was removed from the fireplace and taken to Halifax, where local savants were unable to translate the inscription. It was then taken to the home of J.B. McCulley in Truro, where it was exhibited to hundreds of friends of the McCulleys, who became interested in a later treasure company.

Somehow the stone fell into the hands of a book binder, who used it as a base upon which to beat leather for many years. A generation later, with the inscription nearly worn away, the stone found its way to a book store in Halifax, and what happened to it after that I was unable to learn.?

27th March 1935 Letter of Harry W Marshall to Fred Blair and RV Harris
The stone was on display until 1919 in the store of Creighton and Marshall, which his father was a partner. Harry says one of the Creightons who was interest in the Oak Island Treasure Company brought the stone to Halifax, but no characters could be seen except for the initials JM which were carved into the stone in more recent times. Considering the Oak Island Treasure Company was in existence from 1893 to 1899, this can only mean a Creighton brought the stone to Halifax between 1893 and 1899.

The trail of the stone goes silent after 1919.

Conclusions

Early details about the stone are weak.

McCully?s failure to mention the stone to Andrew Spedon is most suspicious. The stone would have been the only tangible evidence to the early story. This lack of inclusion to Andrew Spedon defies logic, especially considering McCully mentioned the stone in the newspaper only one month earlier.

Perhaps McCully did not know where the stone was located which is consistent, or had reservation in showing the stone?

At some point between 1849 and the death of Smith in 1857, George Cooke observed the stone and found characters. Between the time of George Cooke viewing the stone and replying to John Hunter-Duvar in Jan 1864, someone supposedly build a wooden partition which hid the stone.

John Hunter-Duvar, the Secretary for the Historical Society of NS never does see the stone, and never does obtain a rubbing. If so, it would have been included in a period publication of the society or would have made it into his own book, The Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. (1892, London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.) Chapter 12, - Explorations in North America.

Upon George Cooke disclosing the location of the stone in Jan 1864, it is quickly removed from the fireplace prior to the closing of the Oak Island Association.

We can gather by the dates, and folding of the Oak Island Association, for the stone to have been removed very close to the end of the company and very near to when its location was disclosed by George Cooke. If they knew about the location prior to the disclosure by George Cooke, then why did Jefferson MacDonald and company wait to remove the partition to view it?

While George Cooke says he saw characters and supposedly other folks in Halifax and Truro saw characters, by the time the stone arrives in Halifax for a second time, no characters are observed on the stone.

The stone had not yet been translated by 1872. This would be consistent for the information by Driscoll. The stone came to Halifax, then went to Truro, then in or after 1893 (a stone) made its way back to Halifax.

Did J.B McCully switch the stones, even perhaps selling a fake to the new Oak Island Treasure Company?


So what do we have a translation of an alleged stone with cipher on it that has been missing form 1919 and no clear evidence it was ever recovered from the pit?

And undisputed translation of the alleged cipher that never seems to be same every time the cipher is illustrated?

cypher text version oak_island_map.jpg cypher text version mapfull.jpg ALLEGED INSCRIBED STONE OAK ISLAND.jpg


Hardly constitutes evidence of treasure?
 

Last edited:
Another point.

Oak island was not as remote as people led to believe.

Oak Island was owned by John Gifford and Richard Smith, two fishing agents from New York, were granted the island in Mahone Bay on 27th December 1753 by Governor Charles Lawrence . This date was prior to many of the islands being named and even pre-dates the once used numbering scheme.

Subsequent documents show they possessed islands 12, 13, and 28 (modern day Oak Island). Island 28 was renamed to Smiths Island and is shown with this name on a 1761 map of Mahone Bay. Some British naval maps named the island Gloucester island. They remained in possession of Oak Island, modern day Youngs Island, and Gifford Island, which still bears the name from John Gifford.

The island passed into control of the Shoreham grantees at some point between 1760 and 1764; then was renamed to Oak Island. The island was subdivided into lots and sold off from 1764. hardly a remote spot to bury treasure?


Another thing the date of the alleged discovery is also in question? The various accounts of the 19th Century never mention three boys, with only Blair?s Prospectus mentioning 1795 as a date to discovery.Other than 1795 being the year in which Smith bought the property, there is nothing else to suggest 1795 as the year of discovery. DeMille indicates the son got married and then communicated information about the pit.

If this son was Nathaniel Melvin, he married in 1795. All of the texts, except for Blairs, suggests the pit was discovered, or at minimum became known to the Loyalist group before 1789. All of the three friend versions, except for Judge DesBrisay?s, are all based upon the Anthony Vaughan Jr. to Creelman exchange of information. It interesting to note there was several people living on the island in 1795.

Simply put 16 year old Daniel McGinnis never rowed over to this mysterious island because he lived there. He lived with his stepfather and mother and several of his brothers and sisters are buried on the island. Smith to is recorded at one time living on the island.


So we have a story related by a Anthony Vaughan Jr born in 1782 who was perhaps about 7 years old year old if indeed the discovery was around 1789 or 13 at the time of the alleged discovery in 1795 who did not now the island was inhabited, McGinnis and Smith was already living there by 1795 as well as other families living on one of the thirty odd lots the island was subdivided in since 1764.

Hardly the discovery the treasure legend tells us today?

Crow
 

And thing I Like to mention and thank is This Canadian researcher that Hardluck mentions very did some interesting research on the Topic.

One aspect of the legend One such element of truth in the legend was for a very large mature tree (oak or pine) adjacent to the pit having been marked with strange characters carved into the trunk. During 1770 a very large fire consumed most of the mainland forest between Chester and Lunenburg. Later in 1788 the Vaughn brothers petitioned the government to cut down about 900 acres of sundry trees for the purpose of farming and milling. The Vaughn brothers owned and operated a mill directly opposite Oak Island, they also owned the second largest number of Oak Island lots.

In reply to the Vaughn brothers petition,

John Wentworth Esq. Surveyor General of Woods in the Province of Nova Scotia and all other His Majesty's Territories in America, etc.

WHEREAS it hath been represented to me by Daniel Vaughan, Anthony Vaughan and James McLeod that they are possessed of a Tract of Land situated, laying and being in the Township of Chester & County of Lunenburg, being the Lotts No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 &6 containing nine hundred Acres and are commonly known by the name of the Western Shore Lotts, second division, letter B and that Sundry Pine Trees are standing on said Lotts which prove detrimental to the culture and improvement of the same.

Having caused the aforesaid Lotts of Land and Pine Trees standing thereon to be inspected and surveyed, I do, inconformity to His Majesty's instructions, hereby grant lycense to the aforementioned Daniel Vaughan, Anthony Vaughan and James McLeod to cut and take away the Pine Trees growing thereon; Save and except thirty eight trees, being from Sixteen inches and upwards in diameter and from Twenty Six feet and upwards in length, which are marked *W being fit and are to remain for his Majesty's service; and are thetfore wholly excepted ut of this lycense accordingly.

Given under my hand at Halifax
this 25th day of January , 1788
J.W. Wentworth"

* represents an unreadable character, thus the mark on the trees consisted of two characters with the second being a W

An original copy of this document can be found at Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management microfiche reel 15684. As you can clearly see, the element of truth was for trees to have been marked for use by the crown. One can easily understand that being later embellished to strange treasure markings.

The crown reserved these large trees for use by the Navy. Considering the large fire in 1770, many of the large trees were burned. In the letter above, one can clearly read the surveyor was only able to identify 38 trees in all of 900 acres that were larger than 16? in diameter and taller than 26 feet. Once can easily understand the surveyor glancing over at Oak Island and seeing the large trees which were unaffected by the fire of 1770. It sounds to me the surveyor visited the island and marked some of those trees too. And thus a possible answer for strange marking on the trees.

These events and combination of a 13 year imagination over these markings, exploitation and manipulation of the facts into story that appeals to everyone common denominator greed. And over the last 200 odd year the legend has taken a life of its own.
 

The stone existed, we don't know who made it or why and we don't know what it means...a fake stone would not prove there is no treasure... It would in fact show that someone believed enough in a treasure to fake it...


A sixteen year old could have rowed his boat to a girlfriend's or relatives house on the mainland...also, the boy may have originally described the limb of a tree over the hole where a block and tackle may have been...this becomes where he found a block and tackle through oral history... Besides becoming lost in the minutiae doesn't explain away the money pit...
 

Last edited:
Hot Zone reality we have claims the stone existed by some one who had his own motives. Just because some one belived there was treasure does not mean there is a treasure. All details are important my friend

Crow
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Oak Island Cross Treasure Sign

⬅️ Previous Thread

wonder if this has been tried?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top