Raparee
Hero Member
The source for the claims regarding the cross is the same in both the story from the show and from Hennigar: the sister. There has been nothing presented to support that claim... no metallurgical analysis, no examination from experts in 1400's jewelry, nothing to confirm that the cross actually came from Oak Island. There is no evidence here. There are only statements with nothing to validate them.
From the link that you provided above: "Newspapers are often the first kind of source historians of the past two centuries will turn to for gathering evidence, but historians rarely rely on newspaper evidence alone. ... But when historians use newspapers in this way, they proceed with caution, as newspapers often include factual errors and always reflect a point of view. Newspaper reports are frequently incomplete, biased, and/or inaccurate."
"Oral History" has it that not too long ago in New Ross, NS, leprechauns would steal cars and take them on joy rides. This has been confirmed in writing by Joan Hope. Does that mean it really happened? It's true that Oral history CAN be a valuable tool. It CAN be a great way to pass down stories from generation to generation. It CAN also be a great way for mistakes, errors, and outright lies to be passed own, as evidenced by the game 'Telephone'. Did George McInnis have a map? Maybe. it might even have been a map of Oak Island. Maybe it was map outlining the sawmill that was on the island at one point that George found while cleaning out his dead grandfather's desk, and concluded it must have been a treasure map. Maybe that assumption was made by one of George's ancestors, and that assumption was passed down as part of this 'oral history'. That other people may have seen this map may support the existence of a map, but it does nothing to confirm the nature of the map ... treasure map, survey map, whatever. People who are shown a map and are told that it is a treasure map will believe that it is a treasure map, whether it is or not. Again. There is no evidence here. Just claims.
This is not evidence at all, let alone physical evidence. This is a statement. The trunk itself would be physical evidence of this Vaughan statement. Then, even if the trunk were available (it isn't though ... none of the 'physical evidence' regarding a treasure at Oak Island is available. None of the maps, stones, gold ...) how would we establish provenance? How could it be proved that the trunk (or gold for that matter) came from Oak Island?
Nothing as dramatic as a 'conspiracy of lies'. One mischievous family member who had got into the rum would be all it took. Not a rare creature around here.
"They bought property on the island, therefore, they found treasure on the island." That seems like quite the stretch to think that the only way that they could have purchased this land was through some found treasure. That they purchased part of the island is evidence that they had access to enough money or credit to buy that land. Nothing more. People bought land all the time at that point ... did they all find treasure to pay for it?
The affidavits state that three chests were found in the swamp. They are evidence of nothing more. There is nothing to link these chests to 'the boys' (who were actually grown men at the time they were alleged to have found this treasure). Where are these chests now, by the way? It would be interesting to have them dated and examined by someone credible to determine whether they were 'treasure chests' or cargo from one of the many groups of treasure hunters who have tore up the island over the years. Funny that hasn't happened.
Again, this is not evidence. This is a claim that physical evidence exists.
I'll stand by my statement that no evidence was presented in the Blockhouse blog that you had linked to. A lot of stories and claims, but absolutely nothing to support or validate them.
