Arcadia Discussion Zone

D'Arcy,



Well that sure as Hell was not the tune you were singing last night during our weekly "how can the OITS and us dominate the world" speech, very inspiring I may add.

While Cerris and I may very share the spoils, you and JB had better start to align yourselves in our plots if you want to taste any of the sugar.

I think the Frog Smashing plan still has merit. Smoke and maybe even some mirrors may be in order. Do you know anyone who has some smoke and mirrors we can borrow?

Roger

Everything you need to know about OI is on this site here: http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/

Everything else is fluff and fairytale.

Incorrect and on par with OITS intentionally misleading association with pirates and piracy to promote tourism.

D*ck Joltes is a d*ck and needs a few jolts.

Why does the truth upset you so much?

Try knocking the facts he presents rather than the person (who you obviously don't know).

In what way?

Dick Joltes and the truth are incompatible. He simply picks whatever "facts" he agrees with and ignores the rest. He's as bad as Smith, just in a different subject.
Why would I want to get my OI facts from Joltes rather than the actual books HE got them from in the first place? Do you think Joltes is a primary source? Hardly.

Roger,

Yes, the island has received some expensive geological testing and examination. In fact, at one point Triton Alliance spent over $100,000 on a geological report that told them plenty. It was called the Golder Report.

I believe it is possible, maybe even likely that there are artificial fissures at the level where bedrock meets the glacial till due to the massive pumping since the thirties and more probably in the last thirty years since bedrock has been pierced and explored.

It is not a 100% certainty that there are flood tunnels built by the originators, but I would wager that the probability hovers around the 90% certainty mark to almost everyone who has studied this mystery extensively.

Treasure seeking and scrying has been mentioned by investigators and one man even tried to link the Mormons with Oak Island. It was more than a tentative link and in fact was pure innuendo with the desired effect to discredit the story. Joseph Smith, legendary founder of the Mormon religion was adept at treasure hunting.

There have been plenty of stories repeated over and over again about the pits of Oak Island being salted, especially when the treasure hunters du jour were getting ready to bail out and leave locals to fend for themselves when the pay checks ran out. Personally, I only know of one such story that has a ring of truth and it was not to perpetuate the dig, but to tease the owner. Even that story is not 100%.

Oak Island is more than what is written in the many books. Much evidence is stored away in locked closets, libraries, collections, archives and grandads old cigar box. With the new treasure hunt about to begin, maybe some of this new stuff will appear.

The best place to discuss Oak Island with many learned and reasonable people is at www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk

Robert N,



Joltes has a very good site and he raises some good questions, but his site is short on alternate information tat does not support his claims. He has never stepped foot on Oak Island.

It is a quite the harsh statement you have made, can you back it up with personal research? Have you read any of the Oak Island books?

Bob_1,



Well, the beast has reared it's ugly head. Tell us all how this affects you anyway. Please tell us how you see this as misleading the tourists?

Hi Tank, judgeing by your blatent disregard for the innocent women and children that wish to view these threads you deliberately repeat as a quote D'Arcy O'Conner's foul obsentity, are you trying to get this tread closed down too because it is risky for your business interest. Tell me do you use that foul language in front of your own wife and children at home, apparently D'Arcy O'Conner does.

You have both attacked me and got my threads closed on the Oak Island Treasure website because you wish to conceal the truth to the public, you would like to do the same thing here.

You both claim to be on good speaking terms with Dan Blankenship and Fred Nolan, well they told me a lot of things but apparently didn't confide to you guys that they had made discoveries in and around the pond/swamp, so much for your inside track.

You may destperately try to portray me as an excentric fool not to taken seriously but what you can't handle is the fact that I have already proved my credability, to the owners. Can you deny that out of the hundreds of project prosals that Blankenship and Nolan have recieved and rejected over the last fourty years mine was the only that they really liked and they actually agreed to work together on, top that with your sarcastic buddy

You see I don't have to convince you or anyone else of your ilk of how good I am, when somebody else can achieve the standard of credabiliy I have ALLREADY set please let me me know, until then although three thousand miles away I am still better than all you guys over there and that's what really bugs you most.

Cerris

Hey Cerris, I can certainly deny it!

Let's start with Laverne Johnson, who dug on the island in 1962 and 1965. Then Johnny Goodman, who dug on the island in 1970. Then David Mugar who had the WHOI conduct various experiments on the island in 1995. Then Petter Amunsden who took measurements and dug a few holes on the island in 2003.

Are you suggesting that all of those people snuck onto the island to do their work on Triton property in the dead of night?

All of them put up their own money, and had contracts co-signed by Tobias and Blankenship in order to test their theories for a limited time.

You are corrrect in stating that they have received hundreds of proposals over the past forty years. But, with the exception of the above, most of them, like yours, ended up in the trash can.

Just thought I'd clear up your erroneous statement for the record.

D'Arcy

Hi D'Arcy, has Andrew asked you to moderate your foul langauge yet, you never cease to amaze me.

What part of "they (Nolan and Blankenship) agreed to work TOGETHER on", was unclear, you are merely quoteing the treasure hunting work that was done at the east end of the island by companies like the Triton Alliance, Fred Nolan was NOT involved.

Have you asked Fred about those pick marks he claimed to have seen around the edges of the pond/swamp yet or don't you believe him?

Cerris

Roger,



Interesting words I must say, and to be honest, with what has happened in the past several months, I may tend to agree with you.

However, as one who has studied this mystery for over thirty years, I have arrived at an alternate conclusion as you may guess. Joltes does an excellent job at making a person question the story. To be honest, it is incredible and at times, there is too much fluff added to the story thus making it hard to accept. This also plays nicely into the hands of the hard core skeptic like Joltes. Don't forget, being a skeptic and folklorist it becomes natural for someone like Joltes to flavour the stew as he wishes.

As people learn and begin to accept even a little of the story, then the tide turns and belief creeps in displacing overt skepticism.



Not true, it is merely his opinion, not fact. There has been no known, recorded hoax on Oak Island.

Roger,



True, that information came out a few years ago after some dogged research and some simple math. Web sites and or books that now perpetuate the notion that three boys (not two) went out to Oak Island on a lark is simply wrong. It is also worthy of note that in 1795, McInnis was an Oak Island land owner according to local records.



Huh? Dubious integrity? Where did you get that from Joltes site?



Early stories of the discovery were not recorded in local newspapers or journals (that we have found) so embellishment of the discovery is probable. Vaughan is the one who told the story of the discovery to a scribe who wrote it down and that is what we have to work with. It may seem improbable, but that is what was told.

If you have information to the contrary, I for one would love to read it.

Is there any evidence that the story predates 1849? If there is none then OI is nothing but a story.

I've never been to OI or engaged in "personal research" but yes, I have read a couple of books, I'm particularly familiar with Lionel Fanthorpe's entertaining fiction besides having read Mr Jolte's site and discussed OI with him. What is "personal research" regarding a story invented in 1849?

It seems that many of the people on this forum have no understanding of what "facts" are. Richard Joltes and Paul Smith both weed out the stories, opinions and ideas, leaving the facts. Some of you think that anything that anyone ever said is a "fact" and berate Smith and Joltes for ignoring lies and fantasy.

Who is a "primary source" regarding a story from the 19th Century?

Robert N,

There is no doubt you are affiliated with Joltes, perhaps a contributing author?

The mileage you attempt to get from the 'three boys' version which some authors have presented, is typical for your type of argument which only offers an intentionally incomplete and misleading picture to the reader. Why?

I recall you very people boasting of no record existing before 1865, with the entire story originating at that time by McNutt?. When records were found, you adjusted the year to 1862, then through the 1850s, now you say 1849! A record does exist from 1849. You know all to well of the 1821 record which indicates treasure hunting.

Your Top Ten Myths....starting at item one is VERY typical of your shoddy research.

By stating Anthony Vaughan (from discovery) was the same age as McGinnis, once again illustrates the intentionally misleading 'fact’ based upon poor research and jumping to conclusions…good work…

Hi Robert N, if you are as Enforen suggest affiliated in some way to Dick Jolts please send him my regards, we actually agreed on quite a few things when we last spoke.

Dick has a fine website and as you would would expect from an archeologist he gives a lot of serious thought to the various claims that have been made regarding Oak Island, and we agree that there are things continually being claimed that defy logic.

There is no doubt that he is an expert in his field but that is achaeology, he is not a maritime history researcher Robert so his opinion on various Oak Island things is the same as as anyone one else. In my own view Dick has reached some of the right conclusions but for the wrong reasons, for instance Fred Nolan, Dan Blankenship, Lionel Fanthorpe, and myself (O I researcher) do not believe there has ever been treasure in the Money Pit, but it was also not in any way a natural formation of linked sink holes.

I am aware that Dick does not subscribe to my Captain William Kidd on Oak Island theory but I have to tell you both that I am a hundred percent sure the il fated Scotsman did take treasure there and what's more I have confidential evidence to prove it. If I can raise sufficient funds to finance our project on Nolans property and we bring it to a successfull conclusion I will disclose not only that information but the complete subterranean system of Oak Island in a DVD.

This thread is specifically about the discoveries made by Blankenship and Nolan regarding the artificially constructed pond/swamp in the mid section of the island on Nolans property. I wonder if Dick knows about these discoveries by the two men now that I have put their personal assurances to me in the public domain.

Whilst I talked to Dan Blankenship on the island he suddendly confided to me (and a witness) that David Tobias had once paid experts to examine the 9ft high bank of earth that separates the pond water from the Detour Road along the whole 300ft lenght. Dan was enjoying telling us that the experts informed a furious Tobias that the bank of earth was artificial and definately not a natural feature. Dan laughed and said with obvious pleasure that he could have saved his former friend a lot of money, it was because he had once seen a rooted tree stump in the deep end of the drained out pond, they don't grow to maturity underwater do they. Then there was the publicly disclosed discovery made by Fred Nolan that there were/are original pick marks cut into the hard clay that are still visable around the edges of the swamp on his property.

When I disclosed this and suggested that the treasure is actually under Fred Nolan's property I was immediately attacked by Danny Hennigar (Tank) and D'Arcy O'Conner, obviously if this got out it and become well known it could affect tours to the empty Money Pit and empty Borehole 10X.

I have honestly quoted what Dan and Fred have told me personally and I have no reason to doubt their integrity, however after being subjected to their harrassment and smears I challenged D'Arcy and Tank to seek verification from the two property owners/treasure hunters themselves, predictably they declined then and still refuse.

Cerris

www.oakislandrevelations.com

Robert N,



Yes there is. Only if you accept personal testimony from a eye witness on the scene, Vaughan. If you choose not to accept that, then I suggest many things "known" around the world are simply unverifiable stories.



That is exactly one of my pet peeves with regard to Joltes "research" he too has never stepped foot on a place both of you are so quick to dismiss. Can you be satisfied that quick with one man's opinion who has tried to tarnish the history of Oak Island? I can assure you, he has stopped at very little to advance this position including saying some things to me in public he had to withdraw from and apologize for. But, this is an emotional debate sometimes and when you are in a corner, it is easy to lash out in an unreasonable fashion. At the end of the day, he did the right thing.

To say this story is fiction is unreasonable with a simple flick of your hand. Those who have spent years researching, and have read all the books and primary documents have arrived at another conclusion.

Robert N,



Agreed. That is why I try to steer good constructive Oak Island debate to www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk so the blurring of facts can be dealt with in a positive atmosphere.

Reading the taunts by one unreasonable poster with an axe to grind, and another who employs an Etch a Sketch to commit calculations on an ever moving plane, is enough to make a person sigh with disbelief.

This type of nonsense and hyperbole is what gives the treasure hunt of Oak Island a bad name in the face of known facts. No wonder you lean toward this being a fabricated story.

I'll thank you to stop lying about me on public forums, Tank, unless you have proof that my theories involve a spirograph. Not that even a spirograph based theory wouldn't be superior to YOUR Oak Island theories, ie; nothing.
My theory is based on hard fact. It's hard fact that there is a big star shaped area just East of Lunenburg. It's a hard fact that there is a similar star shape and a crucifix shape in a 1618 Rosicrucian print. It's a hard fact that there is an exact same crucifix shaped formation of boulders on Oak Island.
Now I know this is all too complex for Tank to assimilate so I suggest that he stop referring to my theories in any way if all he can do is lie about them and attempt to associate them with the wacky OI theories of others.
Tank has done absolutely nothing to advance understanding of who may have built the MP. All he has done is latched onto it as a means to feel self important, which he's not.

Answer: Those searchers who left behind diaries, journals, letters, drilling and digging reports, etc.

Any honest and competent researcher can find such documents in the Public Archives of Nova Scotia in Halifax and/or in the National Archives in Ottawa.

As any historian will tell you, previously-written books and newspaper articles are one thing - but documents written by 19th-Century Oak Island explorers who were on site are what constitute "primary" research, especially when they are read and compared to other original documents from the same time in order to test their veracity.

D'Arcy

Hi Danny, this thread is about the artificial swamp and you still refuse to get verification from Blankenship and Nolan, all this off topic stuff by you is a smoke screen. It's done to evade to issue of why you and D'Arcy refuse to get the answers from the owners if you genuinely doubt my account of their statements to me.

What is your reason for ducking the duty you owe to the people who pay their hard earned money you every year to tell them the truth about Oak Island, instead you switch the attention to JB, KR, DJ, or myself because you and your buddy are compromised by a conflict of interest.

If the discoveries made by Blankenship and Nolan are true it clearly alters the whole story of Oak Island completely and you know it, so what is the reason for all the deviation and subterfuge. A possible reason has been suggested to me, perhaps Dan forgot to mention the bank of earth and the rooted tree stump to some 'other people' as well as you and D'Arcy, perhaps they are reading this post, hi guys.

This would also explain the reluctance of D'Arcy O'Connor to seek verification of the pick marks reported around the pond by Fred Nolan, if he did this he would have to report truthfully what the treasure hunter said. This verification however would not please some people at all, Dan would not be too happy about that public disclosure nor would any other interested parties. It's just a theory you understand, not an accusation.

Cerris

Cerris