Suggesting a Location Other than the Money Pit

[Charlie P. (NY)]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[gjb]

Only five of the likely seven map instructions appear to have been published. There is as yet no map found for Map Point B. That for Map Point C has been horribly elaborated upon in ‘Olde English’ by Harold T. Wilkins, but the intent is still decipherable. The instructions read:

50 feet N by 8 feet W on Boulder
20 feet NE on Coco Palm
Fyve feet by Fower feet by Fyve.

The account in which these instructions appear is set in the Caribbean - hence Coco Palm being substituted for the Tree. The format is recognisable with the advantage that the unit of measure is given throughout. It also seems that the first two lines have been reversed as with Map A, thus:

Rock 8 feet W by 50 feet N
Tree 20 feet NE
Five feet by Four feet by Five.

The format is as before. It should be mentioned at this point that having worked out the likely meaning of the instructions it appears that the text ‘8 feet W’ should read ‘8 feet S’ for greater accuracy. This is how it appears in the figure below.

As seen previously, the offset from the East Rock is specified first and the centre of the triangle is located as before. Thereafter, the final offset is once more due east towards the Rock Centre Line.

The distance from the centre of the triangle to Map Point C is 34 feet east, so the last line would be 5 + 4 + 5 x 5 feet = 34 feet. This suggests that the format of the last line of all three maps so far discussed is ‘a + b + ac’.

It will be found that interpretation of the three Wilkins maps result in points equally spaced in line, as in the lower diagram above (that is, Map Points A, C and E).

Hopefully, by this point, it might be appreciated that had the instructions been conjured up out of thin air with completely random distances and bearings then such a consistent match to a pattern upon an equally imaginary ground plan would be highly unlikely.

There are still two maps remaining, the full five points of the set being shown in the above figure. This suggests seven points in a balanced pattern so, at this stage, continuing analysis might be assisted by an element of expectation.

 

[gjb]

The map instructions for Map Point E are those most commonly associated with Oak Island and have been used to identify a number of locations. The instructions deviate slightly from those previously analysed in that the last line has no unit of measure specified. The published instructions are as follows:

18 W and by 7 E on Rock
30 SW 14 N Tree
7 by 8 by 4.

The format should be recognisable from the three previous map instructions. Once more, it appears that the first two lines have been reversed and so we have:

Rock 7 E and by 18 W
Tree 14 N 30 SW
7 by 8 by 4.

Previously, when no unit of measure was specified on the first two lines there were indications to suggest what this might have been. In this case, it should be borne in mind that Gilbert Hedden’s interpretation of the instructions in 1937, leading to the Roper Survey, was based on the unit used potentially being the Rod since he judged the distance between the Rocks to be about 18 + 7 = 25 rods (412.5 feet) though this was later found to result in a gap of nine feet. Nevertheless, rod measure proves to be a reasonable initial assumption.

Bear in mind that Hedden also reversed the bearings on the first line to read ‘7W and 18 E’, because otherwise the instructions would be directing the lines in the wrong directions. As the same criticism. or observation, applies to the second line it would make sense to reverse the bearings on that line also. Thus, we would have:

Rock 7 W and by 18 E
Tree 14 S 30 NE
7 by 8 by 4.

This produces three points in the vicinity of Hedden’s ‘nine-feet gap’.

Having found the centre of the triangle thus formed, the nearest Map point is E, but the instruction ‘7 by 8 by 4' differs from those seen previously in having no unit specified and if measured in rods would sum to a distance leading to a point 100 feet or so west of the West Rock.

Rupert Furneaux suggested that these values could represent the well-known dimensions of a near-Pythagorean triangle with internal angles of 30, 60 and 90 degrees which are prominent in the development of the ground plan and also reflected in the equilateral form of the Welling and Mallon triangles. Its potential use is illustrated below.

Laying out this triangle as shown results in the centre of the triangle being positioned at Map Point E midway between points D and F. For a more accurate result, the triangle should be drawn in true form with sides of 8, 4 and √48 rods.

It should be stressed that this interpretation is not entirely mine as Hedden effectively pointed to the meaning of the first line in 1937 and Furneaux to that of the last line in 1972.

At this point, it should be appreciated that geometry is playing a highly significant part not only in the interpretation of the maps but also in the enterprise as a whole. This becomes even more apparent in the interpretation of the final map.

 

[gjb]

As previously noted, it appears that there is an actual illustration drawn on Map F showing how the instructions work. This shows the Welling Triangle, the Mallon Triangle, the two Drilled Rocks, a target point and an intermediate point. This may be seen by aligning the map with East at North.

The instructions read: 360 yards V.R. NORTH: 3 stumps: 55 feet from centre of triangle between Rocks 20 feet E. The three ‘stumps’ illustrated are taken to be the defining points of the required triangle and include the two Drilled Rocks.

The first part of the instructions, which will be discussed later, leads to a point due north of the Mallon Triangle and due east of the Money Pit. The last part is straightforward: Find the centre of the triangle thus formed by this point and the Rocks and take an offset eastwards of 20 feet. This ends up at Map Point F.

According to accounts of the discovery of the ‘G’ Stone, this could have been positioned at the point labelled ‘Stump’ in the diagrams above. As might be expected, and par for the course on Oak Island, this stone has been removed.

On the ground plan, the distance from the base of the Mallon Triangle to the ‘Stump’ point in the diagram above is 370.5 feet. The key to the first part of the instructions, which must span this distance, lies in the latitude and longitude provided on the map. This appears to read ‘Lat 9.16 N Long 31.30 E’, but there is clearly a division sign preceding the longitude, and it actually reads ‘Lat 9.16 N Long ÷ 31.30 E’.

In all likelihood, then, this is not actually a latitude and longitude, and it’s certainly not the coordinates of Oak Island. The division sign suggests that it’s part of a calculation. Familiarity with the details of the ground plan suggests just where this comes from and that the calculation is trigonometrical. The values are derived from that portion of the ground plan pertaining to the equilateral triangle connecting the Money Pit and the Mallon Triangle.

The sides of this triangle being 30 rods, which is 750 links, a triangle is thus formed with sides of 229 and 784 links as at left in the figure, there being 25 links to the rod. This produces a sine ratio in rods of 9.16 ÷ 31.36 as at right in the figure. It is suggested that the tail of the final ‘6' has been lost in copying or through fading.

When applied to 360 yards this trigonometrical ratio provides the required distance from the base of the Mallon Triangle to the ‘Stump Point’ thus: 360 yards × 9.16 ÷ 31.36 + 55 feet = 370.5 feet. This would suggest that the letters V.R. may well stand for the Latin Vmbra Recta representing a trigonometrical ratio (tangent) from the Shadow Scale of the Astrolabe as used in surveying prior to the 18th century.

From a historical perspective, the modern division symbol (÷) was first used in the 1650s and the use of a decimal point in the specification of a latitude and longitude is known in the 1690s.

The distance of 370.5 feet from the base of the Mallon Triangle could easily have been spanned by a single calculation (not requiring the addition of 55 feet). It was certainly not necessary to use 360 yards specifically and thus to have a remainder. It may be that the use of the value 360 was intentional and perhaps to direct attention to the 360 degrees of a circle, or even the globe, and the use of latitude and longitude.

It may well be coincidence, but consider that the value resulting from the calculation of 360 yards × 9.16 ÷ 31.36 is 315.5 feet and that as a hash total 360 - 315.5 = 44.5. It so happens that ‘Lat 44.5 N Long 315.5 E’ would have been a reasonable location for Oak Island prior to the introduction of the Greenwich meridian.

Finally, it should be noted that the instructions for Map Points A, C and E appear on maps devised and drawn by Harold Wilkins, but maps D and F are not Wilkins constructs having been used by someone else in the Palmer-Kidd map scam and therefore perhaps reflecting more of the originals, as might be seen above. This becomes significant later as both maps appear to contain further information concerning the deposit.

 

[gazzahk]

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And yet for all that work the strong box is still empty. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Could have got further ahead putting that time in as a barista at Starbucks or a night janitor mopping bank lobbies.

 

[gazzahk]

In response to your lengthy publication on why you believe that the "theorized" Oak Island treasure may be buried somewhere other then the money pit I offer the following observations.

Firstly you whole supposition is based on the premise that – A treasure on OI must exist because why else would so many people have looked for it. Therefore if it has not been found in the pit area it MUST BE located elsewhere on the island.

If it is elsewhere how can we use a combination of non related random things found throughout OI history to help pinpoint where the treasure is.

You then offer a string of unrelated and often things of no relevance to OI as evidence. Case in point the treasure maps.

These maps are clearly in Asia ie The China Sea.

This map looks nothing like OI so why would it be related to OI treasure.

This is just highlighting one flaw in you supposition.

I do not really understand why you think that what you have written is in any way related to possible OI treasure.

The LEGEND is that there was treasure buried in the money pit and protected by flood tunnels and traps from Smith Cove. If there is no treasure in the money pit then there is ZERO reason to assume that treasure may be buried elsewhere.

Using unrelated documents, guesses to try to pinpoint a location of something that there is zero evidence exist is completely pointless.

 

[gjb]

I'm truly amazed that anyone here would believe that everything that's written down is true. If you'd done any research into the origins of these maps you'd understand why they bear erroneous locations. It's what the people who drew them up believed. The outlines are the outlines of the islands they thought the instructions related to. They were wrong.

 

[gjb]

There is no known map for Map Point G. However, the point itself may be highly significant in that its location coincides with a well-known feature of Oak Island, the Cave-In Pit.

In a letter to Rupert Furneaux, Gilbert Hedden reported that the original Cave-In Pit lay 20 feet south of the point that Charles Roper identified at seven rods from the East Rock on a line to the West Rock. The Pit was found to be about 18 feet deep (5.5m) and 8 feet wide. It follows that, at this width, the centre of the original Cave-In Pit would thus lie at Map Point G.

It would seem highly likely, therefore, that somebody dug a deep and well-defined pit at one of the map points located on the extended rhombus. This would raise the question of why. One thought might be that the digger believed there to be something deposited at that spot and not necessarily a treasure. It may have been something that was needed in order to locate it. The originator may even have dug the pit himself as a place of temporary deposit.

However, the fact of the hole being where it is may serve to emphasise that the instructions are not simply random values completely independent of known features of the island. However, it may not be that anyone needed to dig at the seven points identified as they may be drawing attention to a single point perhaps at the centre of the figure, as below.

An article by Josephine Fredea in 1906 recounts a tale of a man finding a chest containing information concerning a treasure buried on an island in Nova Scotia reporting the deposit of several packages. Perhaps, this might be a reference to several locations such as the map points.

It might also be considered just where these seven points are located in the context of Oak Island discoveries. Reports suggest that the east of the island is riddled with man-made tunnels. Rupert Furneaux discussed such passageways with Edwin Hamilton and reports the following:

“Descending through a shaft near Smith’s Cove, Hamilton crawled along a tunnel which curved gradually, and divided, ‘going both sides’ of the Cave-In Shaft. Below this tunnel, he found another, and deeper still, yet another tunnel. This deeper tunnel lay in perfect line above the flood tunnel.”

Hamilton sank a shaft eleven feet deep in the floor of this third tunnel finding sand, beach gravel, small stones and blue clay but no water. About six feet down he unearthed a flat stone, not native to that level, and alongside it, several pieces of chewing leaf tobacco in good state of preservation, apparently, left by the old diggers. At ten feet he came across bits of wood and twigs which gave, “the appearance of an old trench dug from the top down to flood the Money Pit” more than 300 feet to the west.

The tunnelling is also confirmed by Simon J. Goodman another keen researcher of the Oak Island mystery. In correspondence with Furneaux, Goodman observed:

“There is also three to four thousand feet of underground passageways on Chappell property. These are all man-made. In one location, as indicated, I followed the passageway . . . and, stopping to take a picture, my feet settled into the ground about four inches. This was not infilling and I easily pushed a branch of a small tree about three feet into the ground without any trouble.”

Goodman commented that, over the years, water had seeped into the tunnel and it had started to cave in. When it rained, water could be seen gushing through the entrance into the passageway. He concluded:

“The reason these locations have not been noticed is because huge stones are placed on top of them and, if the ground settles, the stones settle . . . and in that way nothing seems out of place.”

Furneaux concluded that it is unlikely that all these passageways were searcher tunnels.

These reported tunnels are in the area covered by the map points. Had they been original then it might have been possible and fairly easy to employ them to access a location underground directly beneath the map points or the centre of the figure.

 

[gazzahk]

I'm truly amazed that anyone here would believe that everything that's written down is true. If you'd done any research into the origins of these maps you'd understand why they bear erroneous locations. It's what the people who drew them up believed. The outlines are the outlines of the islands they thought the instructions related to. They were wrong.

lol...

And you know this because ...

So where is your evidence? So far you have offered nothing other then assertion.

What "evidence " do you have that these maps that look nothing like OI show OI?

Anyway I give up you free to believe your delusions....

 

[gjb]

Just how many times do I have to say this for it finally to sink in? The maps in question appear in, or are mentioned in, works by Harold T. Wilkins (1935, 1937, 1940) discussing the discoveries of Hubert Palmer, and all but one are associated with Oak Island in a book by Rupert Furneaux (1972).

By dint of years of research I hold a significant portion of Harold T. Wilkins’ files, also portions of Hubert Palmer’s files and his correspondence with Wilkins concerning the maps and their discovery, and in addition I hold Rupert Furneaux’s Oak Island files. This puts me in an excellent position to understand what had actually been going on, and I certainly don’t need to be lectured on the subject by people who clearly don’t have a clue.

I also have Wilkins’ correspondence with treasure hunters in his circle and I know where the instructions on his maps came from. I’ve also discussed the events with family members of some of those involved in the 1920s and 1930s and have seen some of the original maps, papers and parchments.

I also know the identity of the island Wilkins himself drew for inclusion in his book and upon which he wrote the instructions. I also know that the instructions, as he received them, were not written on maps. Wilkins added the island outlines himself and he was misled about its identity.

The Palmer maps came from the same source, but Wilkins was unaware of this and that these formed a set of which he held part. The Palmer scam being based on Captain Kidd relics could not declare the island to be where the treasure was believed to be located (the west coast of South America) because there was no historical evidence of Kidd having sailed in these waters. Thus, an island with the apparent latitude written on one of the maps could only be in the Far East to be historically acceptable and so information to suggest this was provided on the maps used in the scam.

I know also that Wilkins possessed an outline of the map to which the instructions originally applied and which he actually published and, not recognising it, asked his readers to inform him of its identity. The composite map is as below.

Figure: The island to which the instructions were originally associated.

The outline of the island illustrated was drawn from memory by one of Wilkins’ associates and is as published by Wilkins in the very same book in which the Wilkins Maps A and E first appear (Captain Kidd and his Skeleton Island). It’s on page 345 of the UK edition and page 383 of the US edition.

Wilkins intentionally kept this outline separate from the other maps and specifically asks, “Where is this island?” He very much wanted to know, and Gilbert Hedden as good as told him, though obviously not recognising it either. Wilkins very sensibly played dumb.

It should be observed that the island to which all the instructions were first associated has every appearance of being Oak Island, or Gloucester Isle, as it appears in J.F.W. Des Barres’ late 18th century publication Atlantic Neptune - including the apparent inlet and rivers. The two letters ‘X’ could even be placed for Nolan’s Cross or the swamp.

I fail to understand why so many people here demand acceptance that their totally misguided and uninformed pontificating about these maps is to be preferred to decades of documentary research on the subject aimed at getting at the truth or the path to it.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Harold T. Wilkins is yet another in a long line of pseudo history purveyors no different than muir.

Maps developed by such are fake.

Actual maps cannot exist for something that never existed in the first place.

 

[gjb]

Ideally, the hypothesis should be tested at this point, but this just isn’t going to happen despite forty years of trying. This is a treasure hunt, which means that the owners will disclose nothing that they feel might jeopardise their efforts at discovery. Furthermore, Dan Blankenship declared publicly that Triton refused to listen to anybody else’s thoughts on the subject because, should a treasure be found, such contributors might make a claim on it.

Through the help of Kevin Gillis in Nova Scotia, details of the preceding and what is to come were presented to Marty Lagina who passed everything on to Steve Guptill, but nothing was heard from either of them thereafter.

Being now starved of information in the absence of testing, the hypothesis could potentially become increasingly more speculative. Nevertheless, despite this, might it be possible, in the absence of help or information from the island’s owners, to continue investigation based solely on data in the public domain?

One concern, not apparent unless actually working through the numbers, is that the points derived from the instructions appear to lie just within the targets as if intended to match a slightly smaller design. This is hinted at from Map F which would be closer to target should the instruction have been ‘21 feet E’ rather than 20 feet.

This resulted in a feeling that the path to the deposit may not stop at this point and that further essential information about what to do would be needed.

Consider that had all the ground markers been present on the island then it would have been possible solely with knowledge of the key to the map instructions to identify the points on the ground without having any details of the ground plan.

However, why would it then have been found necessary to leave an indication of the angle of magnetic variation in the form of the Welling Triangle? this is not at all necessary in order to locate the map points, but it would be essential to be able to reproduce the ground plan from the locations of the ground markers, as was done here.

Could this perhaps be the objective, that knowledge of the underlying layout is necessary in order to continue, and the match of the instructions to the ground plan is simply confirmation that the layout developed up to this point is correct?

Furthermore, there could be an additional pointer to the ground plan being correct in the false latitude and longitude provided on Map F, which would also confirm the angle of magnetic variation. It’s almost as if it’s necessary to know the magnetic variation operating at the time, potentially because the tunnels leading to the deposit were kept on track by using a magnetic compass underground.

Should this be so, then it may well mean that the angle of magnetic variation was used not only to keep the path of the flood tunnel(s) on target but also in the further development of the ground plan and that its use might betray a more likely location for the deposit should there have been one.

On close inspection, the answer appears to lie in the internal detail of maps D and F.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

The response above is a nonsensical continuation of previous posts citing fake history.

 

[traveller777]

View attachment 2005781

Heard that.

 

[Gold Maven]

Wow, what a thread.

My problem with boulders as markers, is that there are boulders all over the island.
Lets say they had some way to move these huge stones, how did they lay them out on an island full of trees and brush? Surveying equipment of the past required line of sight.

An island sized map made with boulders seems impossible, and unnecessary.

Just my thoughts.

 

[ArfieBoy]

We all know that the Ancient Aliens set this whole puzzle up... just so they could watch some of us scurry around like little ants trying to solve it. It amuses Them!

 

[gjb]

Wow, what a thread.

My problem with boulders as markers, is that there are boulders all over the island.
Lets say they had some way to move these huge stones, how did they lay them out on an island full of trees and brush? Surveying equipment of the past required line of sight.

An island sized map made with boulders seems impossible, and unnecessary.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for the observations. While I agree about the many obvious boulders on the island, just a few locations are considered to be marked by single low stones, and these were granite (I believe) and certainly had holes drilled into them. The two I've been discussing were low and flat and 421.5 feet apart. At a stretch, might the holes have been used for flagged poles to enable triangulation from a remote line of known length?

Your other observation concerning laying out the 'cones' of Nolan's Cross certainly bears consideration, though I imagine that the moving of the six boulders would probably have been more challenging than the path clearance.

It was not my intention to suggest that the entire island layout is made up of boulders. Many of the apparent survey stations and ground markers noted by Fred Nolan were small, a few were effectively stone spikes. It's also possible that some were of wood (such as the stakes being removed from the edge of the swamp).

Also, not all the lines I draw need necessarily have been cut through the brush. They're just there to illustrate the underlying geometry. Nevertheless, I agree the task of surveying would have required a lot of work!

A little later, the Roadway will become a key line in the ground plan and this was certainly cut through with great effort, if original.

 

[gjb]

Since Map F seems to contain an illustration of the working of the map instructions, a logical thought might be that it may also contain a clue as to what to do next should something else be required. It does seem that this may be so, but the consideration goes further than this - apparently, so does Map D.

Map D has a distinctive feature in that some of the internal detail at centre is actually in red ink. Close inspection suggests that this appears to be a path indicating a continuation of the ground plan north of the Rocks, and the same seems to be indicated on Map F.

The main thing to note is that the East and West Rocks are shown, but the East Rock on Map F, at right in the figure, is marked by a Greek gamma (γ) appearing as ‘oγ’ and this is replicated further north (that is, the 20 of ‘20 Turtles’, as ‘γo’ looking like ‘20').

In times past, the letter gamma substituted for the astrological sign of the Ram representing the First Point of Aries to indicate East. On Map D, at left in the figure above, just above the West Rock is a point marked with a Greek letter omega (Ω) which substituted in the same way for the First Point of Libra representing West.

It appears possible, therefore, that there may be Rock equivalents to the north of the Rocks themselves and that their positions with respect to the Rocks on the maps suggests that they lie on magnetic bearings.

That markers in the area have not been found on the island could be that they are not as obvious as the drilled rocks. It might even suggest that they could be buried or that their existence was not to be identified in physical form. In the further development of the ground plan, these points are termed Locators and their possible link with the Rocks is indicated in the central diagram above.

The ground plan as currently developed appears to provide a clue as to what might come next in order to match the further detail on the maps. The Locators may have been positioned as an extension to the mechanism by which the Rocks were placed - and this will be illustrated in the next post.

There is a potentially interesting adjunct in the 1906 article by Josephine Fredea mentioned in an earlier post. This reports an island in Nova Scotia described as being “past Sesambre” (Sambro Island, Halifax, east of Mahone Bay) upon which several treasure deposits were made. Interestingly, the island location is described as actually being two islands with a path between them, but rather oddly says that one of these islands is in the West Indies.

This cannot actually be the case, so one might suppose that the island in Nova Scotia had the same name as an island in the Caribbean. It was suggested above that the ‘20' of ‘20 Turtles’ is not in fact a qualifier, so the map merely suggests that there are turtles, not how many of them - which in any event would be strange.

However, in the context of the Fredea article, this could be the name of an island in the West Indies, that is, Tortuga or Tortue. This was named for the silhouette which resembles a sea turtle swimming.

Above right is Oak Island as such a silhouette, and at left is an outline of Oak Island as it appears on an 18th century printed chart - again, much like a turtle but in plan. On this basis, might Oak Island once have been known as Turtle Island, Tortuga or Tortue?

Naysayers will doubtless declare that as the outline looks nothing like Oak Island then it isn’t Oak Island. Actually, it is Oak Island, declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Des Barres’ outline is also not particularly accurate either, and note the anchor south of the island - by my count, this is only one of three anchorages marked as such in the entire volume. Of the whole of Nova Scotia, why so identify this island in particular?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Island? Yes. Treasure? No.

You cannot cause reality to change simply with obsessive and excessive verbiage.