Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[Raparee]

The Lagina's discovery of the Hidden Wharf ... What I believe the Laginas have found ...

The Lagina's haven't found anything. This structure has been known and uncovered a few times since the 1960's.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[sasquash]

View attachment 1671731

All this for a drop of water...for a few settlers on Oak Island...with Gold River...flooding down on them with an abundance of the most pure water on Earth?

Others have said...you can't dig a foot on Oak Island without hitting water!

Come on...Sasquash!

Sh... don't tell to anyone ... the money pit was the best fishing place !

 

[Robot]

And What Tree Species Would You Label These?

No acacia in the area.

It was very Strange... that the original owner, an engineer and I believe member of the Original Depositors of Oak Island... of Lots 8 and 22...in 1762...named his property on Nova Scotia...as Acacia Grove!

 

[Raparee]

View attachment 1671926View attachment 1671927

It was very Strange... that the original owner, an engineer and I believe member of the Original Depositors of Oak Island... of Lots 8 and 22...in 1762...named his property on Nova Scotia...as Acacia Grove!

... named for Robinia pseudoacacia, not or true acacia.

 

[Robot]

False Acacia?

... named for Robinia pseudoacacia, not or true acacia.

Have you seen any Data verifying this as the species of tree you claim?

I do not see in any pictures having this tree with an umbrella canopy, like those in the picture of Oak Island.

Black Locust...False Acacia.



I find it hard to believe a World Renowned Arboriculturist the likes of Charles Prescott, son of Jonathan Prescott would make such a grand mistake calling his home Acacia Grove, when it wasn't.

Though his horticultural interests varied widely, he named his estate Acacia Grove for all the acacia trees he planted there, it was through his interest in apples that he would leave his longest lasting impression. By introducing many apple varieties new to the Annapolis Valley, Charles Prescott influenced apple production for years to come.

 

[releventchair]

Have you seen any Data verifying this as the species of tree you claim?

I do not see in any pictures having this tree with an umbrella canopy, like those in the picture of Oak Island.

Black Locust...False Acacia.

View attachment 1672095

I find it hard to believe a World Renowned Arboriculturist the likes of Charles Prescott, son of Jonathan Prescott would make such a grand mistake calling his home Acacia Grove, when it wasn't.

Though his horticultural interests varied widely, he named his estate Acacia Grove for all the acacia trees he planted there, it was through his interest in apples that he would leave his longest lasting impression. By introducing many apple varieties new to the Annapolis Valley, Charles Prescott influenced apple production for years to come.

Don't let some one calling something what it is not in Nova Scotia dissuade you from the truth.
Black locust are not acacia trees.
Acacia trees are not growing on Oak Island as a result of Prescott.

Elephants and giraffes browsing on his black locust on the island? Maybe...But not on their native acacia.

 

[Robot]

What is Bizarre with this...Painting?



Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all appear to be of the same size, , no smaller ones or larger ones, all arranged in a designated area...as if they were Planted at the Same Time?

Is it not Bizarre, the "Trees" in question have no pictures showing them growing on the Mainland or any of the several hundred Islands, surrounding Oak Island?

Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all died at roughly the Same Time?

Is it to be Believed, the "Trees" in question are what gave Oak Island its Name?

There were large Red Oaks on the island as shown by pictures of Lot 5's untouched Habitat.



Maybe the Truth Is, the "Trees" in question had a purpose for Being There!

 

[releventchair]

View attachment 1672106

Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all appear to be of the same size, , no smaller ones or larger ones, all arranged in a designated area...as if they were Planted at the Same Time?

Is it not Bizarre, the "Trees" in question have no pictures showing them growing on the Mainland or any of the several hundred Islands, surrounding Oak Island?

Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all died at roughly the Same Time?

Is it to be Believed, the "Trees" in question are what gave Oak Island its Name?

There were large Red Oaks on the island as shown by pictures of Lot 5's untouched Habitat.

View attachment 1672110

Maybe the Truth Is, the "Trees" in question had a purpose for Being There!

Yes , they had purpose.
They fit with his landscaping design.

 

[Raparee]

Have you seen any Data verifying this as the species of tree you claim?

I do not see in any pictures having this tree with an umbrella canopy, like those in the picture of Oak Island.

Black Locust...False Acacia.

View attachment 1672095

I find it hard to believe a World Renowned Arboriculturist the likes of Charles Prescott, son of Jonathan Prescott would make such a grand mistake calling his home Acacia Grove, when it wasn't.

Though his horticultural interests varied widely, he named his estate Acacia Grove for all the acacia trees he planted there, it was through his interest in apples that he would leave his longest lasting impression. By introducing many apple varieties new to the Annapolis Valley, Charles Prescott influenced apple production for years to come.

"Acacia" was (and still is) a common name for R. pseudoacacia.

 

[Robot]

That was one Heck of a Landscaper!

Yes , they had purpose.
They fit with his landscaping design.

I never thought to look them up in the 18th Century Yellow Pages...under...Freemason Landscaping and Sons!

 

[Robot]

Where Do You...Find This...Stuff?

"Acacia" was (and still is) a common name for R. pseudoacacia.

Robinia is more used in the English language spoken in Europe and Black Locust is a more common term in America, and other English-speaking countries.

Pseudo...Means...False Acacia...Not Real...Never Was!

Its like saying a Pig is the common name for a Horse.

 

[sasquash]

Robinia is more used in the English language spoken in Europe and Black Locust is a more common term in America, and other English-speaking countries.

Pseudo...Means...False Acacia...Not Real...Never Was!

Its like saying a Pig is the common name for a Horse.

Robinia pseudo-acacia
https://treecanada.ca/resources/tree-killers/black-locust/

 

[Raparee]

Robinia is more used in the English language spoken in Europe and Black Locust is a more common term in America, and other English-speaking countries.

Pseudo...Means...False Acacia...Not Real...Never Was!

Its like saying a Pig is the common name for a Horse.

Common names can cause confusion, which is why binomial nomenclature was developed. In Cape Breton, it's common to hear people say "juniper" when they are referring to larch (Larix laricina). We have eastern white cedar in this area, everyone calls it cedar, but it's not really a cedar.
Common names tend to be local, which is why in some areas R. pseudoacacia is referred to as robinia, in some as locust, and in the eastern part of Canada, it's largely referred to as acacia.

 

[Truth]

Common names can cause confusion, which is why binomial nomenclature was developed. In Cape Breton, it's common to hear people say "juniper" when they are referring to larch (Larix laricina). We have eastern white cedar in this area, everyone calls it cedar, but it's not really a cedar.
Common names tend to be local, which is why in some areas R. pseudoacacia is referred to as robinia, in some as locust, and in the eastern part of Canada, it's largely referred to as acacia.

This is our Louisiana Cedar

 

[Raparee]

This is our Louisiana Cedar View attachment 1672452

Another good example. That is not a true cedar, either. True cedars are found in the Mediterranean area, and in parts of Asia. This tree is in the cypress family, and yet there are communities in that area named Cedar Grove, or whatever.... in the same way that Prescott named his property Acacia Grove after the locust.

 

[Robot]

I Think You Are Hung Up On...If It Looks Like A Duck...It Must Be A Duck!

Common names can cause confusion, which is why binomial nomenclature was developed. In Cape Breton, it's common to hear people say "juniper" when they are referring to larch (Larix laricina). We have eastern white cedar in this area, everyone calls it cedar, but it's not really a cedar.
Common names tend to be local, which is why in some areas R. pseudoacacia is referred to as robinia, in some as locust, and in the eastern part of Canada, it's largely referred to as acacia.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I haven't read this thread, from start to finish. Just now scanned the last several pages. Re.: the debate about tree species, native vs non-native, implications thereof, etc....

This is just SO typical of the "wack-a-mole" game that goes on. The pro or con side tosses out a purported support or doubt, that hinges on some fringe element of the story. Eg.: a tree that is on the island. Ie.: can it prove visitors at an early time ? Can it prove visitors from a certain country ? Can it survive the ocean journey ? What is its DNA makeup ? What is the rate of growth of said-tree ? Etc... Etc... etc....

Other examples of this psychology are : To debate fuel capacity and MPG of ships during WWII, if talking about Yamashita. Page after page of debate. Or page after page of discussion on whether or not manual labor can dig a tunnel xx ft deep, and how long that would take, blah blah blah.

And as you have seen: The debate grows to pages and pages, as is shown here.

But at a certain point, doesn't anyone stop and ask themselves: "Wait !? What does this have to do with whether or not there is a treasure ?" If treasure-proponents COULD INDEED show some historical fact (tree types/origin, names, dates, events, etc...), then does that necessarily prove a desired outcome of "treasure" ?

What I'm trying to say is: A treasure story can be 99% true ! (ie.: based on real names, dates, events). Yet if the 1% of the story about the treasure ISN'T true, then ... what good does it do to debate the other 99% ? EVERY TREASURE LEGEND is built around "facts" (they never start with "once upon a time"). And you can sort "fact from fiction" till the cows come home. If there were no treasure, then ....... drum roll ..... there's no treasure.

 

[Robot]

Tom...I am a little disappointed...with your Psychoanalysis!

I have followed your "posts" and always thought you to be an open minded poster.



To Solve a Mystery...No Clue is too Small...And the more Scrutinizing of any Clue...The better the odds of Solving the Mystery.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....

To Solve a Mystery...No Clue is too Small...And the more Scrutiny of any Clue...The better the odds of Solving the Mystery.

Hey there Robot: A part of being "open-minded", is to be "open" to view-points that allow for the possibility of no treasure. In other words: The term "Open-minded" works both ways. Right ?

And as for "scrutinizing clues" (your words) , is that the old addage of "sorting fact from fiction", right ? But as I was saying: Let's say that 99% of the story is indeed based on "facts" (tree types, origin of trees, growth rate, etc...), then ... sure: A treasure proponent CAN INDEED sort those "facts from fiction", right ? And he can show them to be "fact", right ?

But wait: If there were no treasure (the 1% of the story), then what good is it doing? To debate those ancillary names, dates, events, trees, etc.... ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Hey there Robot: A part of being "open-minded", is to be "open" to view-points that allow for the possibility of no treasure. In other words: The term "Open-minded" works both ways. Right ?

And as for "scrutinizing clues" (your words) , is that the old addage of "sorting fact from fiction", right ? But as I was saying: Let's say that 99% of the story is indeed based on "facts" (tree types, origin of trees, growth rate, etc...), then ... sure: A treasure proponent CAN INDEED sort those "facts from fiction", right ? And he can show them to be "fact", right ?

But wait: If there were no treasure (the 1% of the story), then what good is it doing? To debate those ancillary names, dates, events, trees, etc.... ?

Because there are people that think the story is fake. So maybe we need another sub-forum: OI treasure debate and OI story debate .