I believe i found the reason for the pit on Oak Island and it wasnt for treasure.

[HenryWaltonJonesJr]

Well if they had been dated 1700 with 200 years +/- I'd be implied to agree, but they were dated 1200-1400 with 200+/-.

I agree carbon dating is far from perfect, but it is the most trusted scientific dating method there is. There are those that'd prefer to believe by faith that the Earth is 6000 years old...I'm more on the side of the science faith.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[dieselram94]

Just to clarify things a bit, Oak Island is very, very close to shore. One thing about the carbon dating of the coconut fibre. My understanding is that if the fibre is submerged in seawater, the date could be off by a couple of centuries. Has anyone else heard of this? The fibre is there and it is difficult to dismiss. It is important to note that the British really didn't get going in Nova Scotia until after 1749 and spread out from Halifax. The fortifications tended to be simple blockhouses and they were few and far between believe me. I don't think the arsenal theory fits in light of that. The French were certainly around, but their bastion of power was elsewhere in the province. This much I do believe - if archeologists had been permitted to participate early on, we'd be a lot better off in understanding what was/is on that Island.

If it was my project, archeologists would not be involved...

Sent from my USCC-C6721 using Tapatalk

 

[rowanns]

Well if they had been dated 1700 with 200 years +/- I'd be implied to agree, but they were dated 1200-1400 with 200+/-.

I agree carbon dating is far from perfect, but it is the most trusted scientific dating method there is. There are those that'd prefer to believe by faith that the Earth is 6000 years old...I'm more on the side of the science faith.

The only thing about the dates for me is that they may make the association with Henry Sinclair difficult, and for me that would be a shame!

 

[rowanns]

If it was my project, archeologists would not be involved...

Sent from my USCC-C6721 using Tapatalk

I get what you're saying, but there are some maverick archaeologists out there who haven't drank the "our way is the only true way" koolaid thankfully, and who are more than willing to participate in a cooperative manner. I have never been quite able to figure out why there is this antagonism between archaeologists and treasure hunters or those who metal detect. To me, they are complimentary, but I'm a new kid on the block in this area, so I guess I have much to learn.

 

[Dave Rishar]

If it was my project, archeologists would not be involved...

They would not be present for their opinions. They would be present to ensure that any significant finds were recovered and documented properly with regard to context - referees, if you will.

The only thing about the dates for me is that they may make the association with Henry Sinclair difficult, and for me that would be a shame!

Regardless of the date, an association with Henry Sinclair is highly improbable. At least no one is calling him a prince in these threads anymore, so we're making some progress.

 

[Gold Maven]

Could it have possibly been a fresh water well? Dug down, hit sea water, filled it in. Probably wouldn't fill it back in though.

Is the Island strategically located so that someone may have been trying to establish a base/fort/etc. on? water well failed, so they left.

Not very romantic.

 

[rowanns]

Just gotta say though Dave, that dinosaurs were "improbable" until the bones were found. Troy was a "myth" until it was found. You and I and many others know that history as we know it rests ENTIRELY upon what has been found, NOT upon what may actually be out there. Had it not been for the mavericks, for those who dared to question and who faced ridicule, we wouldn't be where we are today. What may be highly improbable to some may one day be fact.

 

[smokeythecat]

Did anyone mention the mothership yet?

 

[Dr. Syn]

Mothership? I thought it was how those from middle earth made it to the surface. Just kidding.

Some thoughts, a few, as a straw brain can't have many.

Maybe wrong, but I thought it was signs of a block and tackle use on the tree, not an actual item there on a branch. If signs of, who's to say how old they were? Last week, month, year, decade...

Also if these folks were smart enough to build the pit system, I really doubt they would have left the block and tackle hanging there.
"Bob where's the block and tackle at?" "What are you asking me for, I thought you were supposed to bring it?"

Okay and could someone have actually had the know how to build an elaborate vertical shaft, and add side shafts to flood said tunnel?
Sure, the folks in Egypt who built some stone mountains had some pretty good engineering ideas, heck we're still trying to figure out how they did it, and we're finding more and more things inside that boggle the mind as to what went into them and why.

As for a bunch of Knights doing it, well how many were there, and how long if they were there would it have taken them to do so?
They were known for fighting evil doers, and banking, that I know, but were they also skilled engineers in the realm of the Egyptians/Mayans/Aztecs/ and so on? Lot different building above ground a castle, as opposed to what this pit was supposed to have been.

Lastly, history is only what the provider of such wants you to know. Ever since it happened we were told Custer bravely fought to the end with his men on top of the hill. Umm, not quite as evidence (not someone's take on it) now shows.


And I have to agree, if this site was/is to be checked out it should be done with expert assistance, not a bunch of yahoos digging holes willy nilly without a clue as to what they are doing. And the TV show, just goes to show if you have money doesn't mean you have brains.

 

[gublube]

I didn't read all the post here, I just don't see why I would need too, how do you drain a cove that's fed by the ocean lol. you could run the biggest pumps in the world and run the lines 500 miles away, the cove will never drain, its connected to the ocean. just sayin!!! funny how everyone is trying to figure it out, find clues to clues. man its supposed to been dug by men hundreds of years ago with not much for equiptment,nor tools. ill say they had some brains though, look at all the modern day geniouses that still cant figure it out. just sayin

 

[gublube]

wait, I just figured it out!!! in the 1600's there wasn't anny water around there. it was all land. they built a treehouse, then buried it when the storms came and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights so that it didn't get wet.but they was smart enough to put a stone saying treasure below so someone would dig it out for them and save them the trouble. when they realized the water wasn't gonna recede,and no one was gonna dig it out, they abandoned it. makes just as much sense as anything else, just sayin

 

[Dave Rishar]

Just gotta say though Dave, that dinosaurs were "improbable" until the bones were found. Troy was a "myth" until it was found. You and I and many others know that history as we know it rests ENTIRELY upon what has been found, NOT upon what may actually be out there. Had it not been for the mavericks, for those who dared to question and who faced ridicule, we wouldn't be where we are today. What may be highly improbable to some may one day be fact.

If you're referring to Sinclair, while there's little documentation available about his life, we do know what his title was, and therefore what his obligations were. He would not have gone anywhere unless the king had ordered him to go, but if the king had an important mission across the Atlantic, he would have sent someone else - he needed his jarls close by. This is generally understood to be true. We can of course disbelieve this, but then we may as well disbelieve the rest of the history of the Orkneys, including who lived there prior to modern times. At a certain point, we have to accept that at least some of recorded history is real, or else we'll be discussing the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead - not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'd be obliged to debate it in a historical context.

Likewise, if we're going to include some documents but not others, we should at least begin with the ones that appear to be accurate. The jarldom system is well-documented. The Zeno document is only a single work, is poorly supported, was not contemporary at its time of publishing, and has errors that can (and have) been proven. One must suspend disbelief to a point to accept that it applied to Sinclair and told the story that it's purported to. Good evidence, and good theories, do not require the suspension of disbelief.

You bring up an interesting point about the dinosaurs though, as the bones were found before the dinosaurs themselves had been theorized. This was likely what created the cyclops myth in Greece. There may be a correlation here, but there may not be.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Well if they had been dated 1700 with 200 years +/- I'd be implied to agree, but they were dated 1200-1400 with 200+/-.

I agree carbon dating is far from perfect, but it is the most trusted scientific dating method there is. There are those that'd prefer to believe by faith that the Earth is 6000 years old...I'm more on the side of the science faith.

Missed this one earlier. I apologize.

The error for specimens exposed to the seawater carbon reservoir tend to err older than actual by about 400 years. I don't know for a fact that this error was made on the initial samples during the sixties, but if it was, that explains a lot. Newer tests would compensate for this and should firm up the date.

 

[rowanns]

Missed this one earlier. I apologize.

The error for specimens exposed to the seawater carbon reservoir tend to err older than actual by about 400 years. I don't know for a fact that this error was made on the initial samples during the sixties, but if it was, that explains a lot. Newer tests would compensate for this and should firm up the date.

Hi Dave, actually Mr. Walton's post quoted the new dates provided on the most recent coconut fibres uncovered on the island.

 

[rowanns]

Now Dave, I'm not suggesting that some of recorded history is not real, not at all. But you and I know full well that historical conclusions are highly subjective and always have been. Throw in a cultural bias or two by whomever is conducting the analysis and facts can be distorted. That's why carbon dating is such a great help, but it only can go so far.

So what do you want first Dave, the evidence or the theory?

There is considerable evidence coming out of the East Coast of Northern Canada at the moment that clearly showing a Norse presence here and an extended one at that. The connection between the Orkneys and Norway is deep and beyond doubt. If we are to throw out works due to errors, we wouldn't have a map left of the so-called New World before the 20th century.

So the evidence for a Norse presence is there and it is growing in its geographic scope. The connection between the Orkneys and Sinclair is there. Henry Sinclair pledged his fealty to the Norwegian king. Norway - Norse - Sinclair - narratives - archaeological evidence of a Norse presence in Labrador, in Newfoundland, with a renewed focus upon Nova Scotia - this stuff is not made up.

It becomes easy to see how the suggestion of Sinclair being here in NS starts to gain merit Dave. In the end, it may not have been Sinclair, but it was someone.

 

[TheHarleyMan2]

Well thinking on all this Oak Island stuff and the platforms at certain depths. You know back then they didn't have heavy equipment to dig. They did it by hand using shovels even still the 1849 miners of yesteryear. How did they dig into teh earth for form a mine?

They dug into the ground and when it was too deep to dig and haul the dirt out they made platforms to work on so they can dig deeper. I had not read this whole thread, but reading up on Oak Island and the questions raising about the platforms I have yet to read anything on anyone mentioning how they thought they dug that deep.

I know I am a pretty strong guy and I certainly ain't that tall either. I know in my mind there is no way me or anyone else could dig down to a hole past 8 feet deep and just hand someone a bucket of dirt!

As my theory is the platforms are at certain levels, someone in the bottom of the hole filled a bucket with a rope to it raised by a person on the above platform and dumped the contents into another bucket and the person above hauled the dirt to his platform and so on until the person outside the hole dumped the dirt out and passed the bucket back down.

The reason for the hole? Maybe they couldn't find fresh water and kept digging down until they could find fresh water. People say the island is full of fresh water, but does ANYONE KNOW ANYONE THEY CAN VERIFY that lived in that time frame, (I think not because they been dead long before our great grand parents time), when the cove was made to say there was actually fresh water all over the island?

Mysteries are good but I don't think there is any treasure on the island in my opinion! Just a treasure of money going into someones pocket!

 

[Dave Rishar]

So what do you want first Dave, the evidence or the theory?

Evidence. Craft a theory to fit the evidence, rather than attempting to force the evidence to fit a theory.

There is considerable evidence coming out of the East Coast of Northern Canada at the moment that clearly showing a Norse presence here and an extended one at that. The connection between the Orkneys and Norway is deep and beyond doubt. If we are to throw out works due to errors, we wouldn't have a map left of the so-called New World before the 20th century.

No argument here. In fact, it's something that I've pointed out repeatedly in a number of these threads.

So the evidence for a Norse presence is there and it is growing in its geographic scope. The connection between the Orkneys and Sinclair is there. Henry Sinclair pledged his fealty to the Norwegian king. Norway - Norse - Sinclair - narratives - archaeological evidence of a Norse presence in Labrador, in Newfoundland, with a renewed focus upon Nova Scotia - this stuff is not made up.

Agreed - the norsemen made it to both Greenland and Newfoundland. There can be no doubt, as we have conclusive evidence of this, and I don't think that anyone is disputing that. Further, there is (to me) strong evidence that they went quite a bit further south than that. I have no indisputable proof of this, but I disagree with the interpretation of Vinland being at L'anse Meadows. Furthermore, even if it was there, it wasn't as if these explorers simply would have sat down and said, "All right men, this is far enough." That's not how they operated. Again, not indisputable, but it's strongly hinted at and just as importantly, it's a logical theory.

We also know why they went to the New World in the first place. They wrote it down, after all. It wasn't a secret.

That having been said, what does all of this have to do with Sinclair? Or treasure?

It becomes easy to see how the suggestion of Sinclair being here in NS starts to gain merit Dave. In the end, it may not have been Sinclair, but it was someone.

For the former, no it does not. For the latter, it was many someones; some of them are named in the sagas. Bringing Sinclair, Templars, and even treasure into it is an attempt to force very questionable evidence to fit an illogical theory.

So, to recap:

Norsemen exploring the New World for fun and profit? Indisputable and logical.

Norsemen hauling former Templars, their treasure, and the jarl of the Orkneys under an assumed name to the New World to bury said loot and build a castle? Highly disputable and not logical.

 

[rowanns]

I agree with you on the castle bit Dave. But scientific inquiry does start with a theory first rather than evidence I believe. It is also known as a hypothesis. You need the question first and then set out to prove or disprove it. I have said that it is easy to see why folks would develop theories regarding Sinclair. I never said the theories were logical or illogical. I personally don't think that Sinclair is associated with what is or was on Oak Island, but that's just me. I am not discounting the Templars however, and have always believed the two theories are separate. With all due respect Dave, I fail to understand how Troy would ever have been discovered, since it was considered a myth and should therefore have been dismissed. After all, it would be illogical would it not to believe in a legend. Of course now I'm ribbing you....

 

[Dave Rishar]

I agree with you on the castle bit Dave. But scientific inquiry does start with a theory first rather than evidence I believe. It is also known as a hypothesis. You need the question first and then set out to prove or disprove it. I have said that it is easy to see why folks would develop theories regarding Sinclair. I never said the theories were logical or illogical. I personally don't think that Sinclair is associated with what is or was on Oak Island, but that's just me. I am not discounting the Templars however, and have always believed the two theories are separate. With all due respect Dave, I fail to understand how Troy would ever have been discovered, since it was considered a myth and should therefore have been dismissed. After all, it would be illogical would it not to believe in a legend. Of course now I'm ribbing you....

But in this case, the question came after the evidence. I want more evidence before I'll take the question more seriously. Remember that if it were not for the McGinnis story, no one would be digging in the first place. And the McGinnis story is questionable for several reasons.

Troy is an interesting case. It was written about extensively, and more importantly, it made sense. There were lots of details. At least some of these could be verified. You must admit that we're on less sure footing with the Money Pit, and once we branch off into the more unusual theories behind it...

Perhaps what bothers me is that people are in a rush to explain what the treasure in the Money Pit is and how it came to be there, but no treasure has been recovered and the evidence proving that one is there is...well, a bit questionable.

 

[rowanns]

But in this case, the question came after the evidence. I want more evidence before I'll take the question more seriously. Remember that if it were not for the McGinnis story, no one would be digging in the first place. And the McGinnis story is questionable for several reasons.

Troy is an interesting case. It was written about extensively, and more importantly, it made sense. There were lots of details. At least some of these could be verified. You must admit that we're on less sure footing with the Money Pit, and once we branch off into the more unusual theories behind it...

Perhaps what bothers me is that people are in a rush to explain what the treasure in the Money Pit is and how it came to be there, but no treasure has been recovered and the evidence proving that one is there is...well, a bit questionable.

Well now Dave, we are in agreement on one thing - the rush to explain the Money Pit. What is unfortunate about this whole thing is that folks analyze one piece of the puzzle to prove or disprove something being there. There has never been, to my knowledge, a fully holistic type of approach to all of the findings. I have read geological reports and more books on the subject than I care to think of right now. Everything is piecemeal in its analysis and that's a shame. Each piece has a chapter, but few are trying to tie those pieces together in a coherent fashion. Inscribed stones, Smith's Cove, 800 or so year-old coconut fibres, natural vs man made tunnels, the cross, oak platforms, and so on and so on. Folks can't just cherry pick what fits and what doesn't, tossing out certain things as falsehoods and accepting others to fit whether something is there or whether it isn't. The whole basis of analysis of Oak Island has been to choose a side first and then select what fits after that.

That has meant discounting geological evidence, but it has also meant discounting pictures, materials, and physical objects by outright accusing folks of being liars.

I see no point to any of that nonsense, for nonsense it definitely is.

Heck, we finally found agreement on something though Dave. Oh happy day!

Cheers