Suggesting a Location Other than the Money Pit

[gjb]

This thread presents an assessment leading up to a hypothesis to be tested. It doesn’t claim to present evidence, simply that if the hypothesis is on the right track then evidential support may well be forthcoming should it be investigated.

In an earlier thread, naysayers have declared that there is no support for a suggestion that should there have been a treasure on Oak Island then it may not be in the Money Pit. They’ve also declared that the hypothesis presented here is wrong without even having bothered to look at it. Thus, what is presented here is not directed to them, but to those prepared to be objective and thus able to suspend disbelief in order to consider a proposition.

The incentive to investigate the possibility that should there have been a treasure on Oak Island then it is likely not to be in the Money Pit arises primarily from two considerations. The first is that more than 200 years of exploration has failed to produce any suggestion that the Money Pit definitely contained a treasure. The second is that if accounts of the discovery of the Money Pit are to be believed then this was definitely not a treasure concealment as it was broadcast to all and sundry with the clear invitation to ‘dig here’.

Thus, given the thought that any treasure deposited on the island might lie elsewhere and that there is no obvious place to look consideration might be given to the existence of the principal ground markers at the east of the island: the East Drilled Rock, the West Drilled Rock, the Welling Triangle and the Mallon Triangle - and perhaps the location of the Money Pit if not the Tree reported to have stood by it.

To use a hackneyed phrase, could it be ... that these points on the island have a part to play in identifying the location of a deposit other than in the Money Pit? Should this be so, might there have been instructions for identifying this point by reference to these ground markers?

Consider that we have an island with a conspicuous Tree, Rocks and Triangles upon which legend has it that there was a treasure buried. Now, I ask you to suspend disbelief. Consider also that we have instructions on so-called treasure maps that reference a Tree, Rocks and a Triangle dating to before all these points were discovered.

Again, could it be ... that the instructions work with the ground markers to identify a point on the island other than the Money Pit?

Two problems seem to present themselves. The first is that the instructions are cryptic and second that irresponsible vandalism over the years has completely obliterated the ground markers. However, we do have indications as to their relationship with each other through the Roper Survey of 1937 and the observations of people who saw and documented them, albeit roughly.

There would be one major hope. The apparent existence of major engineering works seeming to involve the digging of shafts and the excavation of connecting tunnels, particularly if by trained (military) engineers, may indicate that there is order to the placing of the ground markers and that their locations might betray this.

If this ground plan could be identified then it might be possible, should the map instructions operate in conjunction with them, to work out what the instructions mean should they be genuine and close enough to the originals (the maps on which they’re to be found being modern copies).

I suggest that this actually appears to be possible and that the instructions in combination seem to indicate a point in the high ground northeast of the Money Pit. This is all very well, but the destruction of all of the ground markers would render this difficult to locate. However, we know roughly where a few of them were positioned and attempting to map the underlying geometry on the ground might reveal further original ground markers which would then enable the repositioning of the missing features.

Such a suggestion is blighted by people’s perceptions of the maps on which the instructions appear and the use to which they have been put by wackos amongst whose numbers I will inevitably be placed. I would thus observe that this hypothesis is not for bigots. It requires objectivity, a suspension of disbelief and, above all, taking the trouble to look at the process by which the hypothesis was formulated.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Singlestack Wonder]

Here we go……AGAIN…..

 

[gjb]

Here we go……AGAIN…..

As I said, this is not for ( removed by mod) ( do not call people names)

 

[freeman]

Yep it's the same guy again trying to somehow get around that even though the Oak Island search started due to one spot and one spot only being thought to be where a treasure might be buried, well, it might be somewhere else.
.
Apparently as no one mentioned it on the show to him so he didn't know it had been recorded all along that early searchers were using a treasure map.

To be fair Doug Crowell did publish about it but his posting has been removed as it was contradicting the 'official' Templar storyline being run by the show.

 

[gjb]

Ignoring fatuous comments by people who believe that they know it all and who refuse to listen to anybody else, as reported in a previous thread, some 40 years ago obtaining the files of researchers involved in the subject back in the 1930s, and contacting people associated with them, enabled me to research and identify the source of the information on the documents in question.

That this involved trying to untangle a web of misinformation spun by the wackos of the time didn’t help. However, I did eventually manage to contact two elderly gentlemen who claimed to have the story behind the source - a file concerning a treasure hunt that had been put together in the 1800s.

While I was suspicious, they did produce a number of documents that looked the part and I was informed that these had been leaked in the late 1920s by someone who’d been called in as a consultant to advise on the west coast of South America where they believed the treasure was located.

However, I recognised the outline of the original island upon which two sets of instructions had been placed. This was clearly Oak Island as it appears in Des Barres’ late-18th century Atlantic Neptune. Somebody had associated the instructions with his charts, apparently before the 1820s, but the owners had no idea as to where the island was located. It was then that I realised that I’d seen a variation of the island outline before which was loosely associated with the published instructions.

This was an incentive to refine the ground plan I was developing as I then had an added source of information and greater confidence in the instructions themselves. This ultimately led to the key by which each of the instructions could be unlocked. It seemed that they worked in exactly the same way.

At that point, I had four sets of instructions seeming to mark out a regular pattern of seven points. I felt that I needed to find another set of instructions in order to provide a test. This led to a long search through newspapers and magazines until I found a map with similar instructions published in 1940. Applying these instructions to the ground plan using the same key identified a fifth point on the figure.

Having obtained the Oak Island files of Rupert Furneaux, I realised from a letter written to him by Gilbert Hedden that the Cave-In Pit appeared to be at a sixth point on the figure.

The coordinates of the points on this figure can be determined with precision, and the five points indicated by the map instructions when applied to the derived ground plan vary from target only by some four to twenty inches.

It’s my feeling that this may not be indicating seven treasures, but that the seven points may provide a focus directing attention to the centre of the figure.

Whether or not this is on the right track, it's worth bearing in mind that treasure hunting isn’t about pontificating from an armchair, such as we see here. It’s about getting out, doing the research and then piecing things together in order to formulate a hypothesis capable of being tested. Whether one can then get the landowner to listen, or to agree to the test, is another matter.

 

[GoDeep]

Not sure why you started another thread on the exact same topic we were discussing on your previous thread you started a few days ago, but, whatever. I had a question over there that went unanswered, so i'll repost it here in case you missed it:

People here insist on commenting on my work and declaring it to be nonsense when they clearly haven’t even bothered to look at it.

This is an appalling attitude to research and investigation. You’re showing outright prejudice and signalling to everyone that you just can’t be bothered to know what other people are presenting and that you cannot, and will not, be objective.

I've read your past posts and they are mostly speculative in nature.

I may have missed it though, so if you have some solid evidence, would you be willing to give a brief (key word Brief) recap now?


Edit: Reread your lengthy posts, your claim in a nutshell is:

"Could the rock "markers", be indicating the treasure is elsewhere"

Sure, and they could just as well be random rock placements. Unless you have actual evidence (say an authenticated diary of someone who purposely laid them out), we're just speculating. Drawing lines through them saying it forms a cross, triangle, points to England or any other dubious claim is pseudo-science.

 

[tomytye]

Not sure why you started another thread on the exact same topic we were discussing on your previous thread you started a few days ago, but, whatever. I had a question over there that went unanswered, so i'll repost it here in case you missed it:


I've read your past posts and they are mostly speculative in nature.

I may have missed it though, so if you have some solid evidence, would you be willing to give a brief (key word Brief) recap now?

IF there is a treasure here’s my theory. I have a pretty good safe in my house that would be fairly easy to find. There’s nothing in it. You have to be more creative than that to find my stuff!

 

[gjb]

Not sure why you started another thread on the exact same topic we were discussing on your previous thread you started a few days ago, but, whatever. I had a question over there that went unanswered, so i'll repost it here in case you missed it:


I've read your past posts and they are mostly speculative in nature.

I may have missed it though, so if you have some solid evidence, would you be willing to give a brief (key word Brief) recap now?

The previous thread relates to a different topic, it's just that people chose not to direct their responses to the intent of Opening Post. The threads have a common background, but the points being made are different.

What's more, I was challenged in the previous thread to elaborate on the suggestion that there may have been a deposit other than in the Money Pit, and this is what I'm doing here. The previous thread has a different objective.

Incidentally, I imagine that most hypotheses would be considered speculative until they're tested. If I'm repeating myself it's because I'm hitting a brick wall trying to get people to be objective and, most of all, to suspend disbelief. The reactions I'm getting are all based on prejudgement and a refusal to consider alternative views.

I'm trying here to provide a background to the development of the hypothesis that the deposit may have been somewhere other than in the Money Pit, and the details will follow. Maybe I just haven't previously explained it well enough. My hope here is to rectify that.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Ignoring fatuous comments by people who believe that they know it all and who refuse to listen to anybody else, as reported in a previous thread, some 40 years ago obtaining the files of researchers involved in the subject back in the 1930s, and contacting people associated with them, enabled me to research and identify the source of the information on the documents in question.

That this involved trying to untangle a web of misinformation spun by the wackos of the time didn’t help. However, I did eventually manage to contact two elderly gentlemen who claimed to have the story behind the source - a file concerning a treasure hunt that had been put together in the 1800s.

While I was suspicious, they did produce a number of documents that looked the part and I was informed that these had been leaked in the late 1920s by someone who’d been called in as a consultant to advise on the west coast of South America where they believed the treasure was located.

However, I recognised the outline of the original island upon which two sets of instructions had been placed. This was clearly Oak Island as it appears in Des Barres’ late-18th century Atlantic Neptune. Somebody had associated the instructions with his charts, apparently before the 1820s, but the owners had no idea as to where the island was located. It was then that I realised that I’d seen a variation of the island outline before which was loosely associated with the published instructions.

This was an incentive to refine the ground plan I was developing as I then had an added source of information and greater confidence in the instructions themselves. This ultimately led to the key by which each of the instructions could be unlocked. It seemed that they worked in exactly the same way.

At that point, I had four sets of instructions seeming to mark out a regular pattern of seven points. I felt that I needed to find another set of instructions in order to provide a test. This led to a long search through newspapers and magazines until I found a map with similar instructions published in 1940. Applying these instructions to the ground plan using the same key identified a fifth point on the figure.

Having obtained the Oak Island files of Rupert Furneaux, I realised from a letter written to him by Gilbert Hedden that the Cave-In Pit appeared to be at a sixth point on the figure.

The coordinates of the points on this figure can be determined with precision, and the five points indicated by the map instructions when applied to the derived ground plan vary from target only by some four to twenty inches.

It’s my feeling that this may not be indicating seven treasures, but that the seven points may provide a focus directing attention to the centre of the figure.

Whether or not this is on the right track, it's worth bearing in mind that treasure hunting isn’t about pontificating from an armchair, such as we see here. It’s about getting out, doing the research and then piecing things together in order to formulate a hypothesis capable of being tested. Whether one can then get the landowner to listen, or to agree to the test, is another matter.

Please provide any actual facts that you have proving anything ever existed on hoax island other than common debris from human habitation.

The best evidence of nothing being on hoax island is that the entire fictional money pit area and smith's cove has been dug to hundreds of feet in depth with NOTHING found, not even a "side chamber".

 

[GoDeep]

The previous thread relates to a different topic, it's just that people chose not to direct their responses to the intent of Opening Post. The threads have a common background, but the points being made are different.

What's more, I was challenged in the previous thread to elaborate on the suggestion that there may have been a deposit other than in the Money Pit, and this is what I'm doing here. The previous thread has a different objective.

Incidentally, I imagine that most hypotheses would be considered speculative until they're tested. If I'm repeating myself it's because I'm hitting a brick wall trying to get people to be objective and, most of all, to suspend disbelief. The reactions I'm getting are all based on prejudgement and a refusal to consider alternative views.

I'm trying here to provide a background to the development of the hypothesis that the deposit may have been somewhere other than in the Money Pit, and the details will follow. Maybe I just haven't previously explained it well enough. My hope here is to rectify that.

Ok, but again, this is a lot of writing, and it doesn't address the question. I'm not trying to brow beat you, but you've literally in these two threads written pages of content, but only a scant few sentences of it are dedicated to your theory, the rest is arguing whether people are closed minded or not.

I'm willing to listen to and consider alternate views, so, i'll ask again, can you brief us what new credible evidence you bring to the table that would make one consider alternative places the alleged treasure may lie?

Edit: I reread your post above where you lay out your theory, my problem is, it's a largely speculative "National Treasure" movie like muddled mix attempting to intertwine different stories and theories and concludes with the most open ended of all questions "could there be treasure elsewhere on the island?" Why yes, and there could be in my back 40 too.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Ignoring fatuous comments by people who believe that they know it all and who refuse to listen to anybody else . . .

OK. Per those instructions I read no further in that post.

But I assume no treasure was found as a result of the lengthy diatribe(s).

 

[Bud Aurum]

I'm hitting a brick wall trying to get people to be objective and, most of all, to suspend disbelief. The reactions I'm getting are all based on prejudgement and a refusal to consider alternative views.

You can't avoid Naysayers, they stick to the bottom of your shoes and follow you wherever you go.
You Bud Aurum

 

[gjb]

OK. Per those instructions I read no further in that post.

But I assume no treasure was found as a result of the lengthy diatribe(s).

Now that exactly sums up the general attitude here. You're not at all interested in discussion or in potentially advancing knowledge just in total negativity and disruption.

 

[gjb]

You can't avoid Naysayers, they stick to the bottom of your shoes and follow you wherever you go.
You Bud Aurum

Ah, you noticed!

 

[gjb]

Given the demands for brevity, I won’t explain how the ground plan was developed or how the key to the instructions was identified. The post is long enough as it is.

The ground plan is predicated on the assumption (and hope) that the ground markers (Drilled Rocks, Triangles and Money Pit) were not placed randomly but are connected geometrically. Any plan developed on this basis must conform to the findings of the Roper Survey and should be consistent with other reported observations of distances and bearings.

The eastern portion of the ground plan as developed is illustrated below. Key in this is the magnetic variation, assumed to be present should the tunnels have been excavated using a magnetic compass underground in order to keep on track. The angle used here is directly related to the tilt of the Welling Triangle. That is, it is the angle represented by twice the tangent of tilt which is 13 degrees (13̊ 00' 14" by calculation) west of north. The design reflects the use of equilateral triangles which is the reported form of both the Welling and Mallon triangles (hence the appearance of angles of 30 and 60 degrees).

Figure: Schema for placing the Drilled Rocks and Triangles.

The Roper Survey found that the distance between the Drilled Rocks was 421.5 feet at a bearing of seven degrees south of west from the East Rock. The distance on the plan above is 421.2 feet at a bearing of 7 degrees (actually 7̊ 00' 41"). The survey also found that the line that Hedden plotted to the Welling Triangle cut the triangle at its east corner and terminated below the base. This would be so on the plan here.

The distance from the Money Pit to Smith’s Cove was early on reported to be some 500 feet. The distance here is 495 feet which is 30 rods. It is not known whether the point marked ‘Money Pit’ is the pit itself or the location of the Tree. Drawing this is simplicity itself as it starts with the line from the point marked ‘Money Pit’ to ‘Cove Point’ which is 495 feet at 13 degrees north of east.

The significant feature is the appearance of an extended 60 degree rhombus in the space between the rocks. Seven points have been marked upon this in a regular pattern.

These are the target points for the instructions on the maps, as shown below. It would seem possible that somebody dug a hole (the Cave-In Pit) at Map Point G.

The common key to interpreting the instructions emerges in a fairly straightforward fashion. In its raw form, the mechanism used for all is:

From the Tree (Money Pit): measure out the specified distance(s) and bearing(s) to define a point on the plan.
From the East Rock: as above.
From the West Rock: as above.
Thence, form a triangle with these three points and find its centre by medians (centre of gravity). From this point, take an offset towards the mid-point between the Rocks unless otherwise specified. The last line, if expressed as ‘a units By b By c’ should be calculated as a + b + ac units.

When applying this key to the instructions, and when laid out on the final suggested ground plan, the variances from the targets are as below.

It is suggested that the fact that all this can be done with such accuracy would appear to stretch coincidence too far and may well deserve investigation on the ground.

Bear in mind that should the instructions on the maps be fabrications then the distances and bearings would be random and yet each can be interpreted in exactly the same way to produce a regular pattern with an average error of less than eight inches upon a ground plan generated from the placing of features discovered on Oak Island.

It’s all very well to say, “I know for a fact that Oak Island is a hoax and that there never was a treasure deposit. I also know for a fact that the the instructions on the maps are forgeries and, therefore, this has to be utter nonsense without having any need to investigate. Also, some people have dismissed the Rocks and Triangles as being unimportant so therefore they are. Furthermore, I know that complete wackos have used the instructions in all manner of ways to suggest points on the island. Therefore, this is yet another suggestion by a total wacko that can be ignored.”

However, here is an attempt to produce a broad-reaching explanatory hypothesis. It might explain why no evidence of a treasure has been found in the Money Pit and why the pit was left so obvious to everyone when it could so easily have been disguised.

It might also explain why the Drilled Rocks and Triangles were left on the island when they could just as easily have been removed. It might explain why they are where they are and might provide an explanation as to their function.

It is suggested that the development of this hypothesis is structured in that it is formulated both from observations of the positioning of features on the island and by interpreting published instructions that are suggested in the literature to pertain to Oak Island and in the light of the results of background research into their possible origins.

Thus, a proper assessment would ideally involve testing - not pontificating based on personal bias derived from past use of the maps and having decided the answer beforehand.

I’ve published details of my thoughts on the instructions elsewhere. Hence, it’s perfectly possible for anyone to reconstruct the suggested ground plan using CAD software and to check it against the Roper Survey, to plot the points indicated by the instructions in the manner I suggest and to measure the variances against target. This would at least show that the mathematics underlying the hypothesis is sound.

Thus, I submit that the exercise demonstrates that it’s possible there could have been a deposit other than in the Money Pit and that the instructions (and perhaps some of the information) on the disparaged maps might play a part in confirming this.

Above all, the focus of investigation should be the resulting ground plan not the maps. It would be the ground plan that might betray the intent. So, why not repeat the exercise and, literally, do the math? I do feel that attributing all this to chance / coincidence would be quite a stretch.

 

[GoDeep]

I do applaud you for the effort you put in to those drawings, but its not evidence of any treasure being buried, i'm sorry.
What this does is assume/suppose/speculate that treasure is/was there on oak island, and if we only decipher the "key", it will point it to us.

It's putting the horse before the cart and wrongly implies: "The treasure is/was there, but the Lagina's are just looking in the wrong place"

So, i will for the last time ask, and then leave this thread in peace, do you have any new evidence you've uncovered that supports treasure was at one time buried on that island?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

In the interest of open minded discussion: knowing that magnetic declination shifts about 2.5 degrees every century what year did you calibrate your overly complicated survey grid to?

 

[gjb]

I do applaud you for the effort you put in to those drawings, but its not evidence of any treasure being buried, i'm sorry.
What this does is assume/suppose/speculate that treasure is/was there on oak island, and if we only decipher the "key", it will point it to us.

It's putting the horse before the cart and wrongly implies: "The treasure is/was there, but the Lagina's are just looking in the wrong place"

So, i will for the last time ask, and then leave this thread in peace, do you have any new evidence you've uncovered that supports treasure was at one time buried on that island?

I can’t help it that you haven’t grasped that hypothesis is speculative and that it’s the testing of hypotheses that would produce evidence in their support should any exist.

By all means, leave this thread in peace.

 

[gjb]

In the interest of open minded discussion: knowing that magnetic declination shifts about 2.5 degrees every century what year did you calibrate your overly complicated survey grid to?

I could dumb it down even more if you're suggesting that this would make things easier for you.

 

[GoDeep]

I can’t help it that you haven’t grasped that hypothesis is speculative

Fair enough, and I can't help it that you can't grasp the concept of straightforward, concise communication.

A simple, "No, i have no new evidence, i just have a speculative hypothesis" would have been clear and concise and ended pages of back and forth, but instead we were lead to believe you had some new evidence to share.

I wish you luck, maybe the Lagina's will have you on the show, they semi-frequently bring on guest hosts and entertain others speculative hypothesis's.