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

[Raparee]

Stones with holes dragged behind horses? Never heard that one, but maybe you could explain it! How about the stones that were too big? You could of course consider that locals used drilled stones for mooring. I think that might be a better argument!

It was a common practice among farmers in Ireland and Scotland right into the 20th century. I read something about it recently. Once I get a it of time I'll hunt it down. The point I was tying to make was that one doesn't need to leap to Norse or Templar explanations for these stones when there are more rational and plausible explanations lie an agricultural tool or, yes, stones from which the locals could have moored their boats.

The Stone Cross I was talking about is well documented, I didn't know about any changes, maybe there are two stone crosses.

I assumed that you were referring to Nolan's Cross. It's been reported that Nolan fiddled around with the positioning of some of the stones, based on material presented in either the OI Compendium or Skeptical Inquiry. One of the other.

Is there any documentation of an earlier European presence in the Bay of Fundy? How do you know the reports were made by the French?

It's been suggested that there was an earlier failed settlement attempt further up the Bay.

Yes, I agree Annapolis Basin was a great location for a settlement, but so would have been Bar Harbor or where St. Johns is today, remember they already had tried a settlement on the Western side of the Bay.

St. John's is in Newfoundland. Saint John is in New Brunswick. A mistake which gets some people's back up. Don't you find it curious, though, that they first tried the western shore if they believed the treasure (or whatever) was in the Annapolis area?

He was on the toilet? How long was he on the toilet? How long does it take to sail across the mouth of Mahone Bay?

Yes. Three days (bad curry). I don't now. Point being, there are many mundane reasons for this omission... weather, sleep, the flying axe handles, etc, etc. No need to go full daVinci Code looking for super secret reasons.

What about the lost Priest? Perhaps he was the famed St Vincent de Paul! Also remember I am only talking about possibilities!

Meh. People get lost. Even (perhaps) saints. There's nothing supernatural about it.

I still think the coconut fibre could be evidence. But again remember I said "could be"!

Could be. Maybe. Perhaps. If they ever do any legitimate research into it (ie: multiple samples sent to multiple, credible labs for identification and dating) let me know.

Cheers, Loki

G'night.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[n2mini]

Tom in CA,
You keep saying there is no treasure and "never was" but you or no one knows that for a fact. The original 3 may have found it as some of their descendants claim, plus there is a good case that Ball, the cabbage farmer found it or something to become some what wealthy.. I don't know if either of these are true so I don't say they are facts. I wish you and others would not keep saying that it is a fact that no treasure has ever been found as it is not a fact either...
This is my problem with the skeptics on here. They keep saying things like this as if it is a fact and it's not.... Sure the skeptics and everyone else know that know one has come out and ever said "I found it and here it is" but that does not mean no one has ever found it/something and just didn't want everyone to know just as now people find stuff and don't want to say anything in case someone else wants to claim it to be theirs... and with our court systems it could easily happen...

 

[b3y0nd3r]

][/B]Actually the claim being made by the skeptics (for the most part anyhow), is that no evidence has been presented which supports the OI story(1). That's akin to a prosecutor accusing you of robbing a bank, providing no evidence to support his case, then expecting a guilty ruling based on the accusation alone.(2)

1. The original story had coconut fibers in it. Coconut fibers have been found in only two places on the island. On Smith's cove and IN the money pit under ground. This alone is proof the story is true. Or are you saying, they shipped in a bunch of coconut fibers and buried them 100 + feet to make it seem like the original story is true?

2. Again, the skeptic is the prosecutor. The person making the accusation(ie the story is fake) has to provide the proof to back up their claim. Maybe the way you are saying is the way it is done in Canada, but not here in the US.

However you wish to slice it, you can't ignore the fact that something unusual happened on the island.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom in CA, You keep saying there is no treasure and "never was" but you or no one knows that for a fact. ...

But ironically , n2mini: That "no one knows" mantra, works both ways. Right ? Ie.: By the SAME token: You don't know that there was/is a treasure. Right ? Thus we can all try to go by the "most plausible explanations" then. Right ?

And after this, you go on to cite the legend story-line . To which I have the same response as I did to b3y0nd3r :

1. The original story had ...

A continuing case of : Using the legend to prove the legend. Circular All we have to do, is accept the "legend" as a given-premise-implicit-true. Then sure: Everything else falls into place and is unassailable. But then to be consistent: SO TOO will we need to accept all other treasure legends (including the $400 million in my back-yard) as being equally true. Why ? Because ... after all: There's a legend.

 

[lokiblossom]

G'night.

Wow, you were working late! yeah, I think stones used for mooring is the most likely scenario, no matter who was responsible.

Reported, suggested, these are words that used to get you riled!

Sorry, I meant 'Saint John', never knew that, thanks, and, yes it is kind of curious.

As for ignoring Mahone Bay, I can only believe that as thorough as Champlain was it had to be on purpose, for what reason is my question? Maybe not a super secret reason, I agree, but!

Nothing supernatural, possibly but there are questions, it was allegedly by a stroke of luck that he was discovered, he left his sword behind-did Priests even carry swords? how would anybody have left something as valuable as a sword behind (would a hunter leave his gun behind)? No, nothing supernatural at all, I can agree with that, just looking for something that the Church wanted.

If it was the same Priest (aka, Vincent de Paul)that was supposedly captured by pirates, his first audience after returning to France was with the Pope.

Yes, for legitimate research into the coconut fibre.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

1. The original story had coconut fibers in it. Coconut fibers have been found in only two places on the island. On Smith's cove and IN the money pit under ground. This alone is proof the story is true. Or are you saying, they shipped in a bunch of coconut fibers and buried them 100 + feet to make it seem like the original story is true?

2. Again, the skeptic is the prosecutor. The person making the accusation(ie the story is fake) has to provide the proof to back up their claim. Maybe the way you are saying is the way it is done in Canada, but not here in the US.

However you wish to slice it, you can't ignore the fact that something unusual happened on the island.

Yup. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof, but again, the skeptics are not saying that the story is fake, but that there is no credible evidence that indicates the story is true ... whichever version of the story is being told. Take the Smith's Cove coconut fibers that you mention. To my knowledge, they have been examined three times by three separate experts over the years, and only one has concluded that they were actually coconut (another claim was that they were hemp, and the other expert was unable to identify them because the sample was too degraded). As for the money pit fibers, has any proof of their existence or identity been established, or are we simply assuming that they were found because the story says that they were? Ditto the log platforms, ditto the 90' stone, etc, etc, etc.

Is it reasonable to accept the story as truth when at least parts of it have been demonstrated to be wrong? The story (or at least the most common version of it) states that three boys rowed over to OI... except we know that two of the three were adults (late thirties at least), and one may have been in his late teens (https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/blockhouse-blog/daniel-mcginnis-the-man-behind-the-myth). All three lived and worked on the island. If the basic elements of the story are demonstrably untrue, why should anyone accept any other part of the story as true without a critical, skeptical examination of it?

The claim that something unusual happened (pre-searcher) on OI is unsubstantiated. Insufficient evidence to convict, m'lord.

 

[n2mini]

Well, yes, I have a preconception bias. I'll be the first to admit it. Namely: There is no treasure, nor ever was.

If the way I "paint" the proposed proofs, as painting a dingy portrayal of the believers, I wish that weren't the case. I don't know how else to show this doubt. Without the consequence being that : "You're painting us a dingbats". At least for YOU, I have stated that I don't believe that about you. You , as I said, have been fair in the joust of logic. But that doesn't mean I find the logic to be meritorious.

If that paints the believers in a bad light, I can't solve that. Nothing less than "believing" would solve the problem of "preconception towards believers". What is my choice ? To simply believe ? "lest someone is offended ?" And lest my "credibility" be at stake ?




Easy. Because time and time again, the various proponents here have DISTANCED THEMSELVES from that "1%" of the story. Which is: Treasure. And have instead maintained that they're *only* interested in history, for history sakes. Eg.: how did fibers get there. What about the boy's story. What about the gold link, etc.... And have maintained that they do NOT believe it points to treasure. And that their interest is strictly for history reasons of the various anomalies claimed by the legend.

So when I said "No one here is claiming there is a treasure", I was merely quoting the ongoing believer's consensus here. And to be (yes , I admit) sarcastic about that. Because, yes, I'm still having trouble believing that this legend is ALL about the hoped for treasure. Why do you think anyone in the world is glued to this ? Why do you think the brother's keep referring to "vaults" and "money pits" and "treasure" ?

But ironically , n2mini: That "no one knows" mantra, works both ways. Right ? Ie.: By the SAME token: You don't know that there was/is a treasure. Right ? Thus we can all try to go by the "most plausible explanations" then. Right ?

And after this, you go on to cite the legend story-line . To which I have the same response as I did to b3y0nd3r :



A continuing case of : Using the legend to prove the legend. Circular All we have to do, is accept the "legend" as a given-premise-implicit-true. Then sure: Everything else falls into place and is unassailable. But then to be consistent: SO TOO will we need to accept all other treasure legends (including the $400 million in my back-yard) as being equally true. Why ? Because ... after all: There's a legend.

and that is why I don't speak as everything is a fact. I know it is not. That is what I'm getting at, you and some other skeptics on here keep speaking as if everything you say is a fact and it's not. That is all I'm saying. I'm NOT saying I'm right or that my way/theory is a fact...

About the only thing that is a fact is who have been some of the people to have searched on the island for "stuff". There are facts of "some" of the "stuff" dug up. Don't know who put it there but there it is.. Mainly wood items, sled, bones etc...FACT...

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Yup. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof, but again, the skeptics are not saying that the story is fake, but that there is no credible evidence that indicates the story is true-If you are saying it's not true, then there is only one option it could be and that's fake. WHAT KIND OF LOGIC ARE YOU USING here



... whichever version of the story is being told. Take the Smith's Cove coconut fibers that you mention. To my knowledge, they have been examined three times by three separate experts over the years, and only one has concluded that they were actually coconut (another claim was that they were hemp, and the other expert was unable to identify them because the sample was too degraded). Read a little further. They came to the conclusion that over time, it would be proven that these were coconut fibers.


As for the money pit fibers, has any proof of their existence or identity been established, or are we simply assuming that they were found because the story says that they were? Ditto the log platforms, ditto the 90' stone, etc, etc, etc.
I guess you slept through the episode that they found the actual fibers in the pit while digging.


Is it reasonable to accept the story as truth when at least parts of it have been demonstrated to be wrong? The story (or at least the most common version of it) states that three boys rowed over to OI... except we know that two of the three were adults (late thirties at least), and one may have been in his late teens (https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/blockhouse-blog/daniel-mcginnis-the-man-behind-the-myth). All three lived and worked on the island. If the basic elements of the story are demonstrably untrue, why should anyone accept any other part of the story as true without a critical, skeptical examination of it?

A few elements of the story can get jumbled. However certain aspects still remain. It wasn't, "we found coconut fibers, let's put that in the story". It was "we found the coconut fibers that were mentioned in the story".

The claim that something unusual happened (pre-searcher) on OI is unsubstantiated. Insufficient evidence to convict, m'lord.

Your POV not mine and others here.

See this is what I am not understanding. As Tom puts it, I'm using the legend to prove the legend. That makes no sense. I am using physical evidence(coconut fibers) to prove the legend.

The legend states they found coconut fibers(this came first). Searchers also found coconut fibers(this came second).

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

So the treasure is the coconut fibers?

How disappointing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.. Mainly wood items, sled, bones etc...FACT...

I don't disagree. And so too is there "stuff" that is "dug up" at any random spot in the USA as well. Eg.: wood, fibers, logs, bones, a square nail, a sled (or .. name your oddity). And I think we can all agree: They can be mean utterly nothing. I can find 50 "uncanny objects", within a 5 mile radius of my house , and conjecture all kinds of theories, and demand all sort of explanations. But .... at the end of the day, they mean nothing.

So too can the "uncanny items" at O.I. mean: Nothing.

 

[Carl-NC]

Again, the skeptic is the prosecutor. The person making the accusation(ie the story is fake) has to provide the proof to back up their claim. Maybe the way you are saying is the way it is done in Canada, but not here in the US.

No, the US does it the same way. If a crime has been committed, it is up to the prosecutor to provide the evidence that a crime was committed, and who dunnit. If the evidence is strong enough, you get a conviction.

In this case, the "crime" is whether treasure is/was buried on OI. The evidence is so weak that a prosecutor would never take this to a jury trial. The whole basis of the story (every scrap of the original McInnis legend) is pure hearsay, and completely inconsistent. It changes every time it's told. The physical evidence is sorely lacking. Expert witnesses would immediately refute the flood tunnel theory and show (using real evidence) that ordinary geology is responsible for the holes flooding. Other evidences can't even be admitted in court because they no longer exist and had highly suspect provenance to begin with. The "coconut fibers" -- if properly excavated, tested, and shown to be true -- could be admitted, but what does that prove? It's akin to a glove on the ground being the lone evidence, and saying that because criminals often wear gloves it proves a crime was committed right here. Coconut fibers would be odd, but don't point to buried treasure.

That's where OI is at. The evidence is underwhelming. Skeptics see that, believers don't.

However you wish to slice it, you can't ignore the fact that something unusual happened on the island.

While I'm sure OI has had a long history of varied use possibly going back thousands of years, the only thing unusual that has happened is a blind treasure hunt. That, and everything surrounding it, is based on pure speculation, fueled by a dismally poor effort to critically examine the evidence. In the legal system, this level of sloppiness would cost the prosecutor his job.

 

[n2mini]

OK. I'm going to try to keep from attempting to get thru to you Tom. As with most skeptics on here the believers have to try to break every little aspect down as to what ya'll are claiming as fact to disprove the whole OI tell. As I have been saying in my last few posts to you.I'm just asking ya'll to not talk as if everything you say is a fact, when we all know it's not. I'm not saying the treasure is a fact on my end, never have, never will unless we all see someone find it on the island.. As with B3y0nd3r above, I think he is just trying to get across that the coconut fibers have been found in Smiths Cove and the Money Pit area. It has been proven. He's not saying that proves a treasure just trying to get the skeptics on here to see that and agree, before he probably moves on to something else. Like I said just a second ago. We have to break every little tid bit of info in the attempt to get thru to ya'll as ya'll will start running off in a long post about walking to CA, playing whack a mole games etc and none of that has anything to do with what is trying to be said... Then you have the smart a?? comments like just above that does no one any good... Just creates more posts to try to answer..when you should see what they are trying to get at..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....If you are saying it's not true, then there is only one option it could be and that's fake.....

You mean "fake" as in ....... someone did so intentionally ? In other words, as in "lying" ? If so, I have addressed this many times: There is a 3rd option: Sincere yet mistaken. Hence, not "lying" or "staging a fake".

I have no doubt , that those who say "it's true", are not "faking anything", nor "lying". They are quite sincere.

.....I guess you slept through the episode that they found the actual fibers in the pit while digging......

Ok, and .... what's the point ? So there's "fibers" there. And the conclusion is ...... what ? I can find uncanny things (maybe even "fibers") within a 5 mile radius of my house too. Ok, and the conclusion is what ?

.... A few elements of the story can get jumbled. However certain aspects still remain.....

Agreed. EVERY treasure story is 99% true, after all. Names , dates, events, etc..... None of them ever starts with "once upon a time...." But ..... drats ...... it's the 1% that sinks the story

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... just trying to get across that the coconut fibers have been found in Smiths Cove and the Money Pit area. It has been proven....

Ok. Let's grant that. Sure. Ok. And .... what's the point ? Is that it ? Isn't all the "clues" supposed to "point to something" ? If so, what is that ?

I'll conjecture (I know this is silly) that it might (just might) have something to do with treasure. Call me crazy, but ... that *does* seem to be the entire point of the legend.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I'm now thinking that certain members here are continuously stirring the pot for their own amusement. There may even be a conspiracy to get people riled up.

I will no longer defend any evidence presented in favor of the OI legend as no skeptic here has provided any factual data to rebuke the evidence.

It is fact until disproved. END OF STORY.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Ya think?

It's entertainment. Just like the show. Nothing more.

Just like the fact is that a person is a hamster molester unless they can prove otherwise. Can you prove you are not?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... It is fact until disproved. END OF STORY.

Ok. And this same stance can apply to the $400 million in my backyard. I'm good with that !

 

[dmg2016]

I will no longer defend any evidence presented in favor of the OI legend as no skeptic here has provided any factual data to rebuke the evidence. It is fact until disproved. END OF STORY.

b3y0nd3r, below is a letter that appeared in The Pennsylvania Packet on July 12, 1790. The article provides a written account with a number of similarities to the OI Legend. It supports the theory that the OI legend, as we know it, is more than likely just a folklore based on earlier stories or events (I posted this early in the week, but I deleted it after it was erroneously chastised.)

July 12, 1790 - The Pennsylvania Packet
(Originally appeared in July 2, 1790 edition of the Connecticut Gazette)



The letter matches the initial discovery of the MP by McGinnis and subsequently enlisting the help of two friends, Smith & Vaughn/Ball. Continuing, the letter states that a ballast stone was discovered 3 feet below the ground. In the OI story, nonindigenous (gold river) stones are found 2 feet below the surface. The letter goes on to state that the discovery occurred just off the south shore, which once again matches the location of the MP on OI (not sure about the distance from shore). Finally, the discovery of the burried money occurs in June. Although less substantiated, a few accounts state nonetheless that the discovery occurred in June or in the summer.

The importance of this letter is not actually whether or not this story is true, but rather the date & location of the supposed discovery. Being written in 1790 and from Long Island adds credence to the idea that the OI Legend stems from earlier discoveries or folklores. As mentioned previously, the rumors of buried pirate treasure were very well known and well published in the 18th and 19th centuries. This also provides a plausible explanation as to why no evidence related to the discovery has been brought forth over the last 220+ years. (I vaguely remember reading that at least one of the three discoverers had connections to New London (Connecticut). If anyone can confirm this, it would add further support that the story is only a legend.)

I also think it is important to note that a copy of the inscription was made at the time of the discovery. I do not believe any of the early accounts state that a copy of the inscription on the 90 foot stone was made at the time of discovery in 1803/1804. I thought the first copy of the inscription was made in the 1860s-1870s, when the stone was removed from Smith’s fire place. I know it is easy to dismiss this point, but I find it curious nonetheless considering the letter above (Not a 100% certain, so please correct me if I recalled this wrong).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Good sleuthing work dmg-2016. But alas, it contains things like : " ... more than likely ...." and "....adds credence to the idea that...". Which are variations of what I've been saying : "More plausible explanations" .

But those don't get counted as "evidence". They can not 100% conclusively DIS-prove a treasure. And as such: The legend stands "unless you can disprove" it.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

b3y0nd3r, below is a letter that appeared in The Pennsylvania Packet on July 12, 1790. The article provides a written account with a number of similarities to the OI Legend. It supports the theory that the OI legend, as we know it, is more than likely just a folklore based on earlier stories or events (I posted this early in the week, but I deleted it after it was erroneously chastised.)

July 12, 1790 - The Pennsylvania Packet
(Originally appeared in July 2, 1790 edition of the Connecticut Gazette)

View attachment 1688444

The letter matches the initial discovery of the MP by McGinnis and subsequently enlisting the help of two friends, Smith & Vaughn/Ball. Continuing, the letter states that a ballast stone was discovered 3 feet below the ground. In the OI story, nonindigenous (gold river) stones are found 2 feet below the surface. The letter goes on to state that the discovery occurred just off the south shore, which once again matches the location of the MP on OI (not sure about the distance from shore). Finally, the discovery of the burried money occurs in June. Although less substantiated, a few accounts state nonetheless that the discovery occurred in June or in the summer.

The importance of this letter is not actually whether or not this story is true, but rather the date & location of the supposed discovery. Being written in 1790 and from Long Island adds credence to the idea that the OI Legend stems from earlier discoveries or folklores. As mentioned previously, the rumors of buried pirate treasure were very well known and well published in the 18th and 19th centuries. This also provides a plausible explanation as to why no evidence related to the discovery has been brought forth over the last 220+ years. (I vaguely remember reading that at least one of the three discoverers had connections to New London (Connecticut). If anyone can confirm this, it would add further support that the story is only a legend.)

I also think it is important to note that a copy of the inscription was made at the time of the discovery. I do not believe any of the early accounts state that a copy of the inscription on the 90 foot stone was made at the time of discovery in 1803/1804. I thought the first copy of the inscription was made in the 1860s-1870s, when the stone was removed from Smith’s fire place. I know it is easy to dismiss this point, but I find it curious nonetheless considering the letter above (Not a 100% certain, so please correct me if I recalled this wrong).

I will say this was a good attempt to debunk the original legend as a story of coincidence. I would agree with it, if it wasn't for what I posted below:

"McGinnis lived on the island. Smith bought several parcels on the island. Vaughn lived near and participated in the digs until his 60s. If they conned people, they didn't do a very good job of getting away from the island with the money. If they or just assumed there was treasure because of a sink hole, than many others believed them."

Also(found this on the web):

1. We may never know if the three men, Daniel, Anthony, and John, discovered a tackle hanging from a tree or even a depression. We can know for certain that whatever they saw in the money pit area took hold of all three of them and changed the course of their lives.
2. There is no documented remnants of wooden platforms every ten feet, only stories about the dig. What we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that they were motivated to keep digging. If there was no flagstone, no platforms, no loose dirt and pick-ax marks along the walls of the pit, do you think they would have kept digging for a hundred feet? Just ask yourself the question, and let me remind you that these men were not retired or bored. They had families to feed and a lot of other hard work to be doing.
3. Oak Island nuts say that enough people saw the inscribed stone that it may have been real, but even without the proof of the strange code, we have the sweat-equity of a second 100 foot hole. These three men found something that motivated them to overcome the first flood and dig a second hole and eventually continue on after a second flooding. Even if we don't have proof of what it was, we know that it was something very real.
4. Some Acorns say that the treasure was found during this first dig. If that were the case, I seriously doubt Anthony and John would have spent there later years still digging. I just don't think that digging deep, vertical holes for no reason is any fun.
5. Some people say that the dig was just a hoax. The life he led portrays Daniel dying with the elusive treasure on his mind. Why do I think that he never gave up believing? I will tell you why, because he passed down enough information to keep his descendants on the quest. His Will and Testament left his property on Oak Island to his sons and daughters. No one would perpetrate a plan to follow the family like a curse, Daniel must have believed in this treasure-hunt with all his heart. The obsession Daniel began, did not stop with his children, each generation was also driven to send their children to search and so on down the line for 200 years.
   We may never know what Daniel found, or what information he discovered, but we can clearly see what he did with it. He passed down what he thought was valuable. Ask yourself, is there a father or grandfather that would try to mislead his entire family? By the lives led and actions of McGinnis men from 1795-1983, I say that it is obvious that Daniel found something very compelling on Oak Island.