Arcadia Discussion Zone

Brian,

You received the confirmation email and acknowledge that I approved your membership; therefore, your previous post of me hiding things from you is without merit. Additionally, even this forum has a degree of control as guests are not permitted to post. This means both of your suggestions are invalid.

Manoel was head of the family which claimed this big double bay at 44.5 degrees N. The 1560 Velho map and court documents state the island and bay by name. He was a member of the Holy Order, the House of Avis, a military engineer responsible for constructing the defenses of the Azores, employer of Italian hydraulic engineers within the Azores, and had a work force of African slaves. According to two separate and notarized court documents dating from 1531 and 1568, the family was using the islands and mainland to raise domestic livestock primarily for the whale oil trade in Labrador. Additionally, I think they were mining lime and burning the extensive shell middens for their brand of lime mortar used in the Azores as this material needed to be imported. Considering this family obtained the grant in 1508 and we knew of their activities, it stands to reason they were in the bay for several generations. I also know the name of their ship “The True Cross”. All of the above is freely available online via google and is only provided as a brief overview to their activities. While some information is not available through a search engine, you’ll actually have to buy a book to look for it. One such book was noted in a previous post.

Simply put, between the Spanish invasion of the Azores 1581 and 1583, these folks needed someplace to bury their wealth. Unfortunately, they were the last Portuguese colony to remain loyal to the Prior of Crato and could not transport their wealth to either Portugal or any of the remaining colonies. With their bay being only 1100 miles or so away and in the opposite direction of the Spanish fleets it made for the obvious choice.

Funny, but I also have a document from 1585 wrote by an English spy which details the intent of a certain Portuguese person and his fleet, to set sail in an attempt to recover his secret buried treasure. Yes, the spy actually uses the words secret buried treasure.

Once again you were your own worst enemy in an Oak Island. You HAD free access to all of the documents but you blew it.

Now please, I was kind enough to provide the connection between your rock and Rafuse Island within the confines of which you asked. I think it only reasonable that you reciprocate to such a request of connecting your Rosicrucian to Mahone Bay and to the same standards of which I replied. This standard of course is a document of unquestionable provenance.

I know you can't do it, so I'm not really expecting much from you.

You banned me from your forum simply because I made a mistake of missing your e-mail and thought you ignored the app and reacted appropriately to that perceived sleight. I later admitted I didn't look thoroughly enough in the spam folder and said I was sorry for insulting you. YOU are the one acting inappropriately by taking back your forum acceptance for no good reason and still denying membership even after I explained my error. I can only assume that your real reason now is that you see me as a threat and are afraid to let me see what's on your forum. What other possible motivation is there?

Now in regard to the rest of your post, I concede that you may be right about that guy digging the treasure pit. He seems to have had the capability and opportunity to have done so, but how does that rule out the possibility that he was doing it with the Knights of Christ to hide something they wanted hidden for a long period of time, like the Ark or some other religious treasures? Doesn't the name of the ship, The True Cross, tell you that he was involved with such a religious order? Maybe they thought they had the True Cross and were burying it. Wouldn't that explain the OI Cross? If you then accept the plausibility of that scenario, why then would you deny the possibility that a geometric figure was also involved in positioning the pit? He owned the whole bay, did he not? Why then did he choose that particular spot on that particular island? You still haven't provided an explanation for that exact location being chosen in all the bay. I have.

As I have shown previously, and you probably saw at some point in your life, the center line of the small star of the geometry, when applied to the map, passes right through the same part of Round Island as the straight line in the glyph which cuts off the depiction to about half of the island. That straight line on the glyph is the actual center line of the small star. A line from the right arm of the large star to the pit passes through the dagger shaped lagoon on Rafuse Island. Thus, BOTH glyphs of the center stone perfectly explained. The arms of the cross, when extended on a map, lead right to the star formation. The shape of the center stone matches the shape of Cross Island, which is in the middle of the star formation and the dagger shaped glyph is actually in the exact same orientation as the Rafuse lagoon it depicts when the stone is in the proper position to match Cross Island. That's an awful lot of rather precise "coincidences", is it not?

Can't you see that my theory explains the pit much better than you smugglers theory? Why do smugglers need to be involved at all? They sure didn't construct the pit and they sure didn't construct its flood system after settlement already occurred and they sure didn't lay out the Cross. The pit has obviously not been opened since the flood system was built and the pit closed. Why even mention smugglers then in connection with it? You appear to have correctly identified the person who did the digging, and it fits perfectly with my theory. Put them both together and you have a very complete explanation. You're never going to find any of that written down in a document. Secret societies don't often do that. How many documents of the Knights of Christ's secret activities have you seen? Exactly NONE, and you never will. That's why I had to figure out the hard and complicated parts of the OI solution. Thanks for filling in the blank of who actually carried out the digging, map making and Cross laying out. You have made a very valuable contribution to solving the OI mystery. Well done.

Brian,

Your doodle is not a historical document of unquestionable provenance, regardless of what you may think and is nothing more than something you conjured to fit your fantasy. If this is your method of researching Oak Island, then I am not surprised with your lack of progress.

Claim whatever you will about buried contents; however, you'll need a document of unquestionable provenance to move your claim from fantasy into the domain of reality.

While I would like to further elaborate, I think it time you to kindly reciprocate in providing a document of unquestionable provenance to associate your Rosicrucian to Mahone Bay.

I already told you, the Knights of Christ didn't leave documents about their secret activities lying around. I don't need to rely on other people's documents. I MAKE the documents, like the images I show. I'm not a finder of documents, like you, I'm a solver of mysteries. There's a considerable difference. One requires a high level of intellect and the other doesn't. Like I said, thanks for doing the research to find out who the most likely candidate was to have constructed the OI treasure pit for the Knights of Christ to use to safeguard the True Cross, Ark of Zion and immense monetary treasures. I had it narrowed down to the Portuguese, but I didn't have an actual name. Now I do, Manoel de Barcelos Machado. Since, as you stated, that information is publicly available you have no exclusive rights to it. I will now incorporate it into the Grail Star Theory. Now what did you mean by "Holy Order"?

JB,



And now you know why I don't reveal my theory - although, I don't really think that you could incorporate any of it into yours, but you get the picture.

You can now join the ranks of the many to borrow and build upon my research. You're very welcomed but it does show that you're not interested in discussing Oak Island and in fact, by adopting my Portuguese connection, you have forsaken your Rosicrucian connection and it is about time.
For all of the conviction in your Rosicrucian association that you have barked over the years, it didn’t take long to see the very truth which you yourself could not find.

Adopting my research is perhaps the smartest thing you’re done in your Oak Island adventure; however, you will still be required to furnish those documents upon demand and of which you don’t possess.

In reality you demote yourself to being an understudy, good job and thank you for disclosing your intent to adopt my materials.

I hope all of your old haunts read your post and see just how little conviction you had when facing superior research.

I will now refer to you as my apprentice understudy... very good job.

Yes, I see your point, Indy. You may have found something valuable and I could use it in a plausible theory. Now here's some research I just did myself. From The Frozen Echo, by Kirsten A. Seaver. "Certain islands and lands" eh? Do tell.




Sadly, Enforen actually thinks I got the idea that the Portuguese were involved from him. Not so. I said that it was the Ark of Zion taken from Ethiopia by the Portuguese Knights of Christ years ago. The term "Rosicrucians" is very general, since no such actual group existed. The myth of such a group was merely a cover used to publish certain information, such as the print containing the key to the location of the Ark and True Cross. When I said "Rosicrucians", I merely meant the people responsible for the publications containing the Grail Star geometry. Enforen did supply a name which led me to discover who was responsible for the treasure pit project for the Knights of Christ, that being Manoel and Marcos de Barcelo Machado, on the Isla Barcellona de Sam Bardao, later renamed Oak Island. Thanks for the minor help, Enforen.

Sorry apprentice, that document is already of the public domain connecting the family to the island; however, you are doing a very good job in trying to impress your new research master.

It is beginning to appear that you exploited Amusden's theory for your very own too, as he can offer original documents to back up his geometry but you cannot, just like in this instance.

Oh how very wrong you are, Enforen. Amundsen made the very obvious observation that the OI Cross resembles part of the Tree of Life, which I of course had noticed long before. He failed to notice just how inaccurate a match it is, though, that being because it was only DERIVED from the ToL, not a direct depiction of it. I figured out how it was derived from it. The fact that you even compare his ideas to mine only shows how uncomprehending you are of such complex matters. I identified what the shape of the center stone depicts, Cross Island, not a rose as he thinks and which it doesn't even slightly resemble. I identified what the glyphs depict. He has no explanation for them at all. So why would you even put him in the same league as me? So what are his documents backing up his geometry, pictures of the ToL? I can find about 100 of those.

Did you not see the image I posted of the Grail Star in Mahone Bay? How could you have missed the line passing right through the Rasuse Island lagoon depicted on the center stone and he other passing through Round island as depicted in the other glyph? Did you also miss Cross Island, whose main body matches the whole center stone? Well, what more evidence do you need that I solved the OI Cross? That's a lot more tangible and definitive than any document.

Apprentice, you’ve just disclosed your modus operandi. Amundsen can clearly provide documents to back his claims, while you cannot provide a single document to back similar claims. The originator can defend, while the hack cannot.

What is a master to think of his apprentice that goes around hacking people's research then claim it to be of his own original work? I can only wonder how often you do this with other people's work?

How sad apprentice for a life you lead, where hacking Oak Island work somehow has importance and value, how sad indeed.

You're insane, Enforen. I am the originator of Oak Island geometry theories. I had the Grail Star Oak Island theory when Amundsen was still making very bad dragon movies with James Bond. I don't need to take anything from others. I haven't read his book so all I know about him is that he linked the Cross with the Tree of Life and, from that, with the Rosicrucians. Pretty simplistic really. How can you compare that to me deducing something as complex and unique as the Grail Star from an actual Rosicrucian image and Poussin's very mysterious Shepherds of Arcadia painting? Solving that painting alone is a world class accomplishment, and that's just one aspect of my theory. I didn't just take a commonly depicted figure like the Tree of Life and notice that something as looked similar to part of it. I flat out deduced a one of a kind complex figure from the sparsest of available clues. No comparison between that and Amundsen's very obvious observation of an existing well known figure.

I solved the whole OI Cross, not just one minor aspect of it. I showed that it indicates something miles away from Oak Island,which is why it's so huge, and that it gives clues to no less than three other islands using the center stone. Who did I copy that from? Who did I copy the Grail Star from? Who ever mentioned the big star shaped formation just off Lunenburg before I did and linked it to the exact OI treasure pit position? Who has ever explained that exact position being chosen in the first place? When you can answer those questions then maybe you can say I hack other people's work. Why don't I think that day will ever come?

Unlike the pretenders, I'm the real deal. My theories encompass several major unsolved mysteries of the world, Oak Island being among them. By suggesting that I am a mere imitator of such simplistic minded people as Amundsen only illustrates your extreme lack of comprehension of something as complex as Oak Island. That and the fact that you link something as simplistic as a smuggling operation to it. Now that really IS a joke. Why don't you just admit that you wish that you could have done even 1% of what I have done, instead of just compiling documents like a common office clerk?

When I start borrowing from you fantasy drawings then that might be valid; however, as matters stand right now, you are borrowing from my research. So who really wishes they could have done what and be more like who?

Odd that you make a derogatory analogy to a clerk when you obviously google the source and obtained your own copy. That sounds to me like someone compiling documents just like a clerk would do, but only after being told what to do by his superior (in every way).

Now run along with the information I freely provided and put it to good use. So much accomplished in one day with Brian dropping his Rosicrucian theory, then adopting my Portuguese work in light of superior research. Then to cap things off, we get a little bonus disclosure of his modus operandi.

With that, there is no further point or gains to be had with you, at this time. Remember apprentice, you need the documents to move your fantasy into reality.

Kind of like talking to a brick. Anyway, as all forum viewers can plainly see, Enforen has no actual answers to any of the issues I raised. He is, however, very adept at repeating himself like a drunk. He is too afraid to even let me see his forum with his very advanced theory about common smugglers, loggers and fishermen being the solution to the Oak Island mystery. Surprisingly, he did manage to find references to certain Portuguese explorers who may very well have had involvement. So he admits that it is perfectly plausible that a treasure was buried in an elaborate pit on OI as early as the 1530s, and then for no apparent reason tried to link the same pit to smugglers, the pit which will flood to sea level as soon as it's opened. That's the one they used to store their smuggled goods, according to Enforen. Rather damp, but effective if you happen to be smuggling live fish. He has no explanation at all for any aspect of the OI Cross, but admits that one of the glyphs may very well indicate Rafuse Island, he just has no idea why. He also has no idea why the pit was placed on that particular island, when the diggers owned the entire bay, or why that particular spot on the island. I can certainly understand why he tries to keep the viewers of his forum to an absolute minimum. Less mocking that way.

As we can see here, there is a direct connection between the 1618 "Rosicrucian" print containing the Grail Star and OI Cross figures and the Portuguese activities in Ethiopia in the early 1500s. This is documentary evidence that my theory about the Portuguese Knights of Christ, who were in Ethiopia in the 1540s, took the Ark of Zion and buried it on Oak Island. If you don't think the four characters in the bottom of the print resemble those in the Alvarez book cover, from 1520, just compare the man pointing to the globe in the window of the print with the man in the window just above and at the rear of Prester John's head in the book cover. If only Enforen had such graphic evidence to support his ill conceived smugglers theory, and too bad for him that he blew the chance to have the actual solver of the Oak Island mystery appear on his otherwise boring forum. I'm sure people will be impressed when he tells them some PhDs are on his forum, ones dumb enough to believe his theories. Not many of them around.

I guess he ran away. So much for the author of the "Single most important Oak Island webpage". Somebody join his forum and tell me what's on it, willya?

Apprentice Brian,

Notwithstanding your attempts to gain access to my forum via open proxies and the likes, I am a little troubled that you have been unable to find or produce the remaining documents.

I practically fed it right to you by providing the man who did it and a map, yet after 24 hours all you can post is a non-applicable drawing taken from your fantasies. Even the slowest of amateurs were able to search the documents within a working day, I took 3 minutes.

Search engines find (just about) all, you just have to know what to enter; however, you won’t find it on google.

Come on man, after all of the years of driving yourself nuts with Oak Island, I give you the map and documents of unquestionable provenance, which is more than you've ever had before, and you still can't complete the job. Documents Brian, I have, you want them and you know it...

Once again, you were your own worst enemy when is came to an Oak Island encounter.

You are so close, just give up your fantasy and unblock your mind from years of being wrong to help you along. I bet you even took today off work to look.

Best of luck, but I don't think you have it in you.

Oh, I'll get in your forum, don't worry about that. Open proxies were just to see how easy it will be. Now every time somebody applies, you'll think it's me, so you will never accept another member.

I already solved Oak Island. You just aren't smart enough to realize it. Yeah, you gave me the name and the map, that's all I need. Manoel de Barcelos gave the Knights of Christ permission to bury the Ark of Zion anywhere they wanted in Mahone Bay. They accepted his offer, end of story. You can't even figure out what it means when that Rosicrucian print shows the characters from Alvarez's book cover. Pretty obvious, isn't it? See that ark up there on the left side? Kind of like the constellation Argo Navis, isn't it? See the two doves in front of it? Positioned kind of like Sirius and Phaet, aren't they? Figure out what that means. I'll give you a hint, two stars.

Now explain why the OI Cross exists, the meaning of its orientation and the meaning of the center stone shape and glyphs, else bow before me as your god, puny human.

It reminds me of the burial of Alaric. His Visigoths diverted the river and buried him under its course. They must have used a similar technology of many layers of protection. Whatever is down there is more precious than gold, I think it`s a burial.

Conceivable that it's the bones of Jesus, or what somebody believed was the bones of Jesus. That might explain the use of the big cross layout. Might also explain the "cement" vault at the bottom of the shaft, being more like a tomb or crypt than a treasure container. The 153 foot depth is a number associated with Jesus, being derived from the Vesica Pisces, which has a fish shape in it. Maybe Jesus and Mary's bones together, depicted by the two stars of the Grail Star figure. Mary Magdalene or Mary the mother of Jesus, could be either one. The Ethiopian Coptics have quite a Mary fascination. Maybe that's what the Knights of Christ got in Ethiopia, one of those Mary chests with a chalice in it that the Coptics have. Maybe they thought it was the Holy Grail or something.

Lots of mere speculation but the 153 foot depth and the cross pretty much prove there must be something Christian down there. True Cross is another possibility, but the double star figure tells me there is probably a Jesus/Mary combination thing involved. Could be that the Alvarez cover characters in the print simply indicate the Knights of Christ being involved, since one is clearly depicted as the knight on the horse at the right of the cover, rather than something being taken from Ethiopia. The book is from the early 1500s so maybe the clue means that the Knights of Christ put something in the pit in that time period, around the 1520s, earlier than when they probably took the Ark, when they went back in the 1540s. So I guess that rules the Ark out.

Thoughts of a possible Portuguese connection are not exactly original, nor is smuggling or privateering, but it's interesting to note that there's a theory of Portuguese origin based on documentary evidence. However, we still don't have a document stating, and proving conclusively, that a Portuguese group was responsible for the Oak Island enterprise. It's still theory. Furthermore, I'm sure that Danny and D'Arcy will tell us that it's unlikely such a group could have buried a treasure on Oak Island between 1581 and 1583 because that's about the time that either the Spanish or the English were doing precisely the same thing!

As I read it, we have here a theory based on documentary evidence competing with other theories based on documentary evidence (for example, that of Graham Harris) but we don't yet have documentary evidence that proves any particular theory to be corect. Additionally, we cannot exclude the possibility that a theory not yet based on documentary evidence might be the right one, and it's still possible that someone could locate evidence supporting a potential deposit of treasure in the Americas by an esoteric group in the 17th of 18th centuries.

I have long maintained that the answer to the Oak Island mystery is less likely to be found in documentation in Canada than in the US or Europe (UK, France, Spain or Portugal) and so this is where the search for documentary evidence should be focused. I feel that somebody researching on the European side of the Atlantic is more likely to find original documentation, if it exists, than someone working on the other side. However, it seems to be the prevailing attitude that if you don't live in Nova Scotia, or are not undertaking research in Nova Scotia, then you're little people.

It also seems absolutely crass to me that anyone should consider that a visit to Oak Island, or membership of the OITS, is a prerequisite, or an aid, to finding the answer to the Oak Island mystery!

Geoff,





You make some great intelligent observations as I have come to expect in the past, but I was so disappointed to read your last statement that equates to more or less a slap across the face, again.

I believe that if one wishes to offer a theory, they almost certainly should consider visiting the place they write about at some point. Especially when a volunteer body like the OITS goes to great length and sacrifice to offer the opportunity to thousands of people who have taken that very advantage. Many of them are from the four corners of the Earth, not just locals, and quite a few theorists I may add.

You need not join the OITS to offer a theory. I am flabbergasted and in a weird way, flattered you would suggest that. I did not think we had that much power of persuasion in the world. Do you recall a few years ago writing to me in a private message that you were considering shutting down your web site because “people did not accept my (your) theory?” Do you recall me asking you to reconsider your stance so others could read it and make up their own minds? Do you not know that on the Oak Island Tourism Society’s web site, we currently offer a link from our web page to yours? Are these the works or actions of a group who wish for you to go away? I know very well you are not a member, nor have you been to Oak Island, but we (the OITS) still offer both if you find value in either. All you have to do is save up some cash, buy a plane ticket and come on over. I’ll welcome you with open arms and dismiss all this silliness and insults. Lets be bigger men than this.

Theorists who can defend their position without reverting to insults and tiring rhetoric are the ones who can rise to the top of the theorist game and gain the all importnat credibility. Everyone knows that any theory regarding Oak Island is tentative, but what separates the logical theorists from the illogical ones is how they deal with challenges people offer them and their research. Insulting and slagging off me and or the Oak Island Tourism Society is no way to earn support from either of us.

I do not have a firm pet theory, nor am I interested in treasure hunting myself, two facts many theorists seem to glaze over. I am perfectly willing to listen to anyone’s theory, just ask Petter Amundsen. Not only did I listen to his theory, but I opened up my home to he and his camera crew and participated in his documentary. Not becasue I belive his theory is the be all, end all, but because like Graham Harris, he is a gentleman.

Now, lets stop this before it gets nasty and why don’t you accept my invitation to come to Explore Oak Island Days next June, no strings attached, certainly no membership required. I’ll offer you more than I expect you would ever consider offering to me as a token of anticipated peace between us.

PPM me for details if this offer intrigues you.

Danny

You have your view of who's been doing the insulting and slagging off, and I have mine, but I echo your sentiment. However, I don't believe that the way an idea is presented should have any bearing on its worth, and you may recall that we initially parted company over your failure to support my attempts to curb the excesses of Cerris in the early days in order to forestall what eventually happened.

FYI, I visited Oak Island in the late 1970's while working abroad and enjoyed a pirate's tour guide of its history and features. Since then, I've visited Halifax twice, once for research purposes, and have driven down to the causeway just to look across at the source of all the confusion. So, it's not as remote to me as you seem to believe.

You're aware from our offline discussions that I presented an outline of just one portion of my Oak Island research not to argue it against all comers but in search of the elusive Nova Scotia thread, hoping that by airing it somebody over there might recognise the significance of documentation in their possession. This didn't happen. You also know that I'm not looking for an answer to the Oak Island mystery I'm looking for the answer to an Oak Island mystery. There's a great deal of difference.

Oak Island research cannot be about secondary sources alone. At some stage, a researcher just has to get his or her hands dirty in the archives. What money I can spare for indulging in the mystery will be allocated to doing just that, which happens to be my idea of an EOID!

Many years ago I attempted to gain access to the island to survey and document the Easterly Drilled Rock and the Mallon Triangle, at my own expense and sharing the results, but I made the mistake of telling David Tobias that I didn't think Francis Drake played an integral part in the enterprise. Big mistake! Nor did I put any faith in guides from the spirit world! An even greater mistake! I also tried, on several occasions, to obtain an interview with Fred Nolan - all to no avail. To my mind, the situation during the Triton years was intolerable - perhaps as a consequence of the Goodmans and Mallons of this world - and I'm sorry if you and others have felt a backlash from the unwarranted and distasteful superiority and exclusiveness of the owners, which I felt was reflected on Jo's forum in the early years.

I just don't happen to believe that sitting on the island gives anybody the right to claim that they know, and have, all there is to know and have about the mystery - any more than random probing will reveal the answer. Surely, some of the answer will be found on the island and some is probably over here, and there are resources that can do the looking if provided with a clue as to what to look for and, roughly, in what period.

I also don't feel that anybody with power to act has gotten really serious about solving the mystery yet, and dividing the island into two mutually exclusive zones of thought and action is not a promising foundation for anything. Furthermore, popularising Oak Island for tourism is one thing, solving the mystery is another and I don't feel that Jo's forum (even less this one), or the OITS, can offer any structure or direction in attempting this. That must come from the owners - but it won't.

Graham Harris may or may not be right but he went about things the right way. Far better than hammering him on issues arising from his presentation is to follow him into the archives and discover what he missed. However, that would be really getting serious about Oak Island, and it seems far easier for some just to surf, spin and enjoy the day!

Geoff,



Geoff, as it turned out, that was a good call on your part, but I like to give everyone a chance no matter how misdirected I feel they may be. You are not the first person to part ways with me over the way I deal with controversial people, but I am a softy and have a big heart. I have also discovered after many years that my approach may not make everyone happy, but in the end, often it is the right thing to do.

My support for Cerris was not for this theory as much as it was that people were jumping on him way too hard, unreasonably so, and I don't particularly like that. You and I know full well who led that charge and I still feel it was a tad over the top but that particular poster was an very unreasonable, angry person.

I did not know you had visited the island and had a tour, by your earlier inference, I thought you had not been there. My offer still stands however and I would be delighted to give you a better look at the island, including the Mallon Triangle which I photographed back in the early 70s and anything else that remains for one to see. June of 09 is the date to keep in mind.

As for the owners, Fred Nolan and Robert Young aside, we (the OITS) have a great professional relationship with both men you mention and the new partners of Oak Island Tours Inc. I feel no superiority issues you mention and putting myself in their shoes for a second, I can understand why they sometimes come off a bit harsh. As you say, those who proceeded us have helped to strike a bench mark that by times is high, more so for those of you who have a theory you want to exercise and or explore.

I'll not speak on behalf of Jo's forum, but I will say this. Her forum has given many of us a leg up on what would have been a lonely struggle for a better understanding of the mystery of Oak Island without it. The Oak Island Tourism Society however, I can speak for, and it is our position to let treasure hunters hunt for treasure and we stay abreast of tourism issues. Of course, I feel we have done well with this and have offered many people a chance to see something of great interest to the world. As a bonus, we have been fortunate to collect rare records that may have become lost, and we are not done with that by a long shot.

Graham Harris holds my admiration for exactly what you mention, his research that took him outside Canada, off of a computer, and into the places where you and I both feel there remains a good chance to solve this mystery, the archives of the world.

I have enjoyed this conversation now that we have the past out of the way, at least for a bit.

Geoff, I find your website alright. It gets a little overly mathy (a new word I just made) but it's worth looking at. I think that for any OI Cross theory to be substantial it should have an explanation for the characteristics of the most important stone, the one in the center. That's also the one which is different from all the others, not a conical granite but a flat sandstone. How do you account for the shape of that stone and its two glyphs? I don't think it's intended to depict a skull, too dissimilar, though admittedly it is somewhat face-like. I think the shape is a lot like the middle part of Cross Island. Not exact enough to convince a skeptic like Tank, but I find it plausible, largely because the stone has visible striations which are very similar to the striations on Cross Island, which you would notice even at ground level if you explored the island, and could picture how they would look from overhead. You might also be able to see them from a ship's mast. You can see this same island between the legs of the small star in my Mahone Bay star image further up on this page.

Looking at my images of the Cross center stone again, I must admit that what I termed "glyph 2" is really too ill defined to try to match to anything. It might not even be a glyph, for all I know. The "blade" shaped glyph is clear enough though. It can definitely be matched to the body of water on Rafuse Island and is in the exact same orientation as the actual lake when the stone is positioned to match Cross Island.