The Oak Island Mystery

Couple of things on this thread...First off, to Marduk, being a Brit you might not be aware that there is no reason for an Indian not to be named Keith Ranville, so I say this simply as a point of information.

Secondly, I've been interested in Oak Island ever since I got my treasure map in a box of Shreddies...far too long ago. I am what's called an 'avocational' archaeologist, which is to say I have some academic training in the subject and have held a licence to conduct limited activity. I just don't get paid...

So about 5 years ago, I was put in contact with another avocational who was all about enthusiasm but wasn't really up on the legalities. Trust me, this can be a frustrating situation. Anyway, he introduced me to an 'intuitive archaeologist'...a recognised psychic if you will. We walked some sites together and truth is I haven't checked out some of the details he came up with, but I am still able to...another story.

My associate and the psychic actually went to Oak Island and talked with the partner who is usually on site. One of the external threads supplied here said no artifacts are known to exist. Not so, as the few links of gold chain were produced at this meeting. The psychic held them, and subsequently associated them with the treasure of the Templars. The way I heard it, the psychic was actually given a link to take along and study further.

The owner of the site, in turn, apparently believes the gold to have a different provenance. He stated that during the Spanish looting of Central and South America, all the treasure went to Havana, where it was catalogued and put aboard the treasure ships to Spain. The story goes that the bureaucrat in charge would skim his cut off the top, and add it to his own hoard. He supposedly buried that in sites up the eastern seaboard, and it remains lost to this day. The Oak Island guy saw this as the source of the loot.

And Sinclair's castle in New Ross? Not so. The supposed ruins just aren't, simple as that, and this comes from someone in a position to know.

There you are, then. A little more added to the mystery...sorry I can't do names, but you're getting the story some five years old, and a couple names I need to keep to myself. I did see Oak Island from the end of the causeway, though, and ate a Lobster Roll at a nearby restaurant...looking at the island. A fine moment.

Cheers

[edit on 17-4-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

Courtesy is mandatory.

SPiderj

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/17/2007 by Spiderj]

I havent followed up on anything with Oak Island in a while. Last i heard it got sold to a group or corp that wanted to find the treasure. That was about a year ago. Has anything else happened with that? Does anyone know like what stage they are at right now?

Nope, haven't heard anything in a while.

I hope to visit there in the next few months, maybe get some pictures.

Last time I was there was quite a while ago ( cameras weren't invented yet . ).

I do remember some of the items brought up from one of the dig sites were on display, so possibly, if still there, I can get some shots of those.

I hate making plans to visit places, something always comes up at the last moment.

Grailkeeper, I read that you hate making plans, but if you check out this link, you'll see that there's an Oak Island tour day in August...you might wanna think about it. I wish it had been available when I was out there.

www.oakislandsociety.ca...

Originally posted by Marduk

It was not a sinkhole, as you suggested. Templar treasure pit theories are at least compatible with the evidence, whereas the sinkhole idea is virtually impossible to reconcile with the physical evidence. Of all the theories I have read, only the Templar one is plausible, imho.

er ok
perhaps then you can give us an example of another Templar treasure pit ?

I have read numerous books, maybe a dozen, specifically on it. I have read maybe 50 related books.

I thought you were getting this rubbish from somewhere

It is not as well known that there are the remains of a stone castle on the plateau above Oak Island, which is of 14th century Scandinavian design.

there is no such thing
scandanavian castles of that period borrowed heavily from romanesque and gothic style

Only they had the skill, manpower, means to travel there, and possible valuable cargo to hide.

and of course theres no evidence that they ever left the old world but don't let that worry you

That fits with the Newport tower, also of that style.

en.wikipedia.org...(Rhode_Island)#Arnoldist_theory

The prevailing explanation among historians for the origin of the structure is the "Arnoldist" explanation, namely that the tower was a mill constructed "from the ground up" in the middle or late 17th century by Rhode Island colonial governor Benedict Arnold, great-grandfather of the patriot-traitor. It is known that Arnold, who moved into the area in 1661, once owned the land on which the tower stands.

ok so you're saying that the Templars liked windmill style are you

Of all the theories I have read, only the Templar one is plausible

well then perhaps you can explain how the Templars in the 14th century were able to build something that has baffled modern technology and engineering techniques
after that perhaps you can wipe that egg off your face

First point: You offer nothing. I make a valid point. Offer a better explanation that fits the historical evidence. You cannot.
Second point: Denmark might be a holiday spot for you to visit, then you could visit similarly built, equally old structures.
Three: The source I referenced studied the castle ruins in Nova Scotia, which were likely left by Henry Sinclair ( Painted wearing Templar garb and who has Templar family ties going back to near the start of the order.)during his documented, witnessed, and well-accepted trips there.
Newport: Shown to have been built, drawn, and documented before Arnold. The local people also say that, and they were there. You trust a person's views who has admitted in your posted quote that they don't know for sure, but accept one theory as better than others. The contemporary, historical evidence supports my theory more.
Four: Windmill? You cannot have seen many Templar structures if you don't know their fondness for a circular style.
Five: Chartres, Notre Dame, Reims, Westminster, and a lot more Gothic cathedrals are also quite the mystery to modern engineers. You clearly have not delved into the wealth of information extant which details the decades of study into their construction, and the many times the modern researchers were stumped, or theorized incorrectly as to their building methods. It is a topic with plentiful content to peruse, were you to start reading such material.
Six: I will keep the egg, and ask one small favour. How about offering some substance, and toning down the irrelevent pontificating.
You could be wrong, you know. And you might learn something if you did actually dig into these subjects yourself, rather than just skimming over them. There are alot of theories out there, and you offer little information on any of them.
Still sticking with the sinkhole posit?

PS, If modern technology is baffled, you must think highly of me if you think I could tell you how they did it. I don't know, I just know what was done, and some of the people who were around then who were potentially responsible for what was done, none of which do I claim as fact.
It isn't certain what happened back then, and we can only search out as much data as there is, and listen to others who have done likewise, and form our own conclusions. I know I don't know. But at least my theories express some knowledge of the evidence, from people who actually study the sites and people. That is my aim here, and I often have read Marduk posting his guesses with colorful words, very confidently, with self assuredness, and always a put down or two offered towards opposing views.

Three: The source I referenced studied the castle ruins in Nova Scotia, which were likely left by Henry Sinclair ( Painted wearing Templar garb and who has Templar family ties going back to near the start of the order.)during his documented, witnessed, and well-accepted trips there.

Blackguard, ain't no such castle at New Ross. For years, the Nova Scotia government denied its existance, but forbade digging on the purported site. About 7 years ago it was purchased by an individual with an academic background in archaeology. He had the property surveyed and investigated on his own. Much to his chagrin, there was no evidence of wall foundations despite what local legend and previous owners had put forward. Additionally, the property had been scoured by the department of highways way before these supposed archaeological features had been 'detected'.

The story of Henry Sinclair is a fine one, as is that of Oak Island. But a degree of what has been promulgated by the Barry Fells and the Michael Bradleys is weak as it is driven by 'intuitive leaps' These are generally signalled using the phrase 'This could only mean that...", when in actuality it could easily mean a whole lot of more mundane things which don't exactly fit the theory. Kills me, cuz I love the tales, but given the amount of effort and research conducted by these authors (well, Fell is dead, but Bradley could be reading this [u2u me if you are])...it behooves them to look at the science as well as the legend.


[edit on 28-4-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

Since I have not been east of TO, I cannot say you are wrong, but I do wonder where the details, supposed artifacts, and sketches of the foundations came from. All of it may be made up, but to what end? It is not impossible that all the detailed records of the ingenious features in the Oak Island money pit designs are just fiction. In any case, Sinclair's trips were said to have been recorded by a Zeno, and included an account of seeing the rare tar pits of Nova Scotia. It could be a later forgery, I suppose. Considering the abundance of suspect information within the widely taught and accepted historical curriculum, anything is possible. I don't have the means to really delve into this subject deeply enough to say Oak Island, etc. is genuine.

Ok, this goes back a few years so I'm dredging my memory here, but didn't the woman who came up with the 'sketch' of the castle use a sort of an 'intuitive' method? And the 'foundations' are just a matter of how you connect the dots...much the same as can be said for portions of the Peterborough petroglyphs. Artifacts are meaningless without knowing what their provenience is...what level they were found in, what the dating methodology is (and remember that one date is no date), what else was found in association with the artifact, its association with the features...

All this stuff needs to be taken into account and if you're lucky you can come up with a scientifically valid statement. I am personally aware that the property was put to rigorous tests, which in the end weren't able to substantiate the stories...as much as all would have liked them to.

Oak Island...it must be true, because as I said earlier in this thread, I got a map out of a box of Shreddies...

It is quite hard to find sites that refute the Sinclair/Templar/Oak Island etc. accounts, but I found a couple. That was after over a dozen sites that say it has truth to it, and give much information about the topic. If it was being voted on, it is no contest. Nothing I read proved one way or the other, though. Michael Bradley is a common source, but not alone. Zeno information is commonly included in these sites, and it is also contested as to its validity. My personal reading has led me to lean towards the view that there is something there. I did not find all the information I have read before, and I have personally found my own connections, things not mentioned in any books read so far. For example, the name in the Templar quote "Et in 'Arcadia' ego", is very close to Orchadian, the title of Orkney Islanders.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Nothing I read proved one way or the other, though. Michael Bradley is a common source, but not alone.

I respect the volume of research that Michael Bradley has conducted, and the books that he has written. I simply find that I am not comfortable with some of his jumping-off points.

As to the Zeno map...I can't remember what the last word on that is, so I'm going to quiz my archaeology mailing list confreres about it and get back to y'all on this thread.

And a self-edit here...I wnated to mention a book called "The Alban Quest" by our venerable Canadian institution, Farley Mowat. It provided a fresh take on the whole question of pre-columbian visits. I recommend it as a good read. Also known as The Farfarers: Before the Norse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Farfarers: Before the Norse (2000) is a book by Farley Mowat that sets out a theory about pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Mowat's thesis is that even before the Vikings, North America was discovered and settled by Europeans originating from Orkney who reached Canada after a generation-spanning migration that used Iceland and Greenland as 'stepping stones'. Mowat's ideas are controversial and have been accused of being over-speculative. The book has been published in the USA as The Alban Quest.

en.wikipedia.org...:_Before_the_Norse



[edit on 29-4-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

I have read a few reviews of 'The Farfarers', and saw nothing outrageous or improbable in the information presented. If I recall, Mowat offers answers to some questions no one else is answering. That means a lot to me. I detest when critics offer no better alternative answer, yet proclaim that they are certain the theory they are decrying is wrong. If the best theory is not popular, that fact means nothing to me, it is still the best theory. In the case of the Sinclair trips, I feel they are supported more strongly than Cabot's, and they also offer good theories to answer mysteries no one else has offered good theories for, ie. Oak Island and the Newport Tower, to name a few.
I read Mowat's book, 'Sea of Slaughter', and his compilation, 'Rescue the earth', and enjoyed both.
Also, 'Never Cry Wolf', is a favorite of mine, whether true or not.

reply to post by Grailkeeper


Tells us about your experience, take us through the island site please.

Any photos?

reply to post by super70
Here's an new angle I just came across...Blankenship has some folks doing electric resistivity tests on the island to get a sub-surface profile:
archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com...

So, the quest goes on...

Reading the last link it certainly seems that the story continues, and hopefully with answers before December this year as that's when there treasure hunter license runs out. Here's hoping that after all this something good comes of it!

reply to post by Marduk


The interesting thing is if there is nothing down there then why the booby traps? Sometimes the truth is hidden by legends that make them sound so incredible that no one seems to pay any attention to them.