Talk:Oak Island/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism by 192.197.71.189

This anonymous person has repeatedly vandalized the page, even after being politely asked to "talk" about disagreements on this talk page. What can be done about this? Can we ban an IP address from this particular page? JonathanFreed 06:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the situation on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. I don't think they can block someone from editing a single page, but we'll see what they come up with. --NormanEinstein 19:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Some Original Comments

IMO the most likely scenario for the Oak Island pit is this.

• Pirate treasure was believed to be hidden in the area.

• Three men found a sinkhole and assumed that it was the top of a pit that had buried treasure in it.

• They dig perhaps as deep as 30 feet and give up.

• The oral reports evolve until by the time anyone writes it down it includes an inscribed stone found 90 feet down.

• Over the years repeated reprintings of the legend obscures the fact that for over 60 years the discovery of the pit was undocumented and creates the impression that the pit's early history is a matter of historical fact and not mere legend.

• When the pit floods with water do to natural channels in the ground it is assumed to be a complex man made trap further solidifyign the idea that the pit hides a great treasure.

• When it was realized that pirates almost certainly did not dig the pit, new theories were invented to explain it.

• Coconut fibers which were probably the remains of old pakaging material are found on a beach giving rise to the theory that the beach was artificially made as part of a sophisticated "filter" that allows water into the pit.

• People become so predisposed to believing that something is buried in the pit that scant evidence such as blurry underwater pictures are accepted as proof that items such as a severed hand or wooden chest are at the bottom of the pit.

The comments made above are as valid and no more pertinent then the assertations they refute.

198.93.113.49 13:38, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some reason to believe, based on my researches, that a stone with a coded inscription may very well have existed at some time. I don't know if I still have my notes from when I was poking around in Oak Island lore, but it seems a number of people saw a stone. Now, whether or not said stone came out of the Money Pit is another matter entirely -- there is good reason to believe it may have been forged by one of the treasure hunters looking for investors.Kit 02:46:53, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Assessed value of Oak Island?

If anybody knows the street address or similar information, then we could find the value of Oak Island according to the provincial government of Nova Scotia: http://www.nsassessmentonline.ca/

There is a fairly good picture of the island on page 25 (35) of a pdf (http://www.oakislandsociety.ca/feasibility.pdf). The picture appears to have lot or parcel numbers. However, if you enter them into the "Assessment Account Number" (AAN) search page, you will get no results.

Page 14 (22) of the pdf has detailed information about the lot owners (as of the pdf's Jan-2005 publication): "Triton owns ... 23 of the 32 lots, and another two lots are owned privately by the two directors of the company, David Tobias and Dan Blankenship. (Mr. Blankenship’s lot has been divided, with his son David owning the other piece.) ... Fred Nolan ... owns five lots on the north side of the island; lots 9 – 12 and 14. ... Robert Young owns lot 5 to the northwest, while David and Christine Johnston own lot 13 to the northeast."

_The Globe and Mail_ purportedly said the following about ownership and value: "In Nova Scotia, two septuagenarians own most of Oak Island ... Last month, they said they would give up their treasure hunt if they found a suitable taker ... (The asking price) of Oak Island: $7 million. But island resident and co-owner Dan Blankenship, who began searching for buried treasure in 1965, said the property is worth $50 million if the buried booty ... is taken into account..." --Unsigned editorial in The Globe & Mail, 11 January 2003 (from http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/quotes.html on 1-May-2005)

Blankenship speaks at ideaCity 2004

Does anybody have any information from his June 2004 presentation? Does anybody want to grab his picture for this article? see http://www.ideacityonline.com/2004presenters.asp, http://www.ideacityonline.com/2004presenters/dan_blankenship.html, and http://www.ideacityonline.com/2004presenters/images/dan_blankenship.jpg

Blankenship wrote the following note at the conference in response to the prompt, "AN IDEA THAT COULD CHANGE THE WORLD:"

Aims or Goals, (1) Dignify Man, (2) Rectify Injustices, (3) Equalize Opportunities, (4) Eradicate Disease, (5) Freedom from fear, persecution, etc., (6) Make man conscious of GOD, his neighbors, his environment, his country. Lofty But Achievable. Daniel C. Blankenship, Treasure Hunter. (see note #111 at http://ideacityonline.com/wallofideas/launch.asp)

THE FOLLOWING TEXT MAY BE GOOD FOR THE IMAGE'S DESCRIPTION PAGE:

Daniel C. Blankenship (born circa 1924), is a resident of Oak Island, Nova Scotia, and is a director of Triton Alliance, Ltd. Triton, Blankenship, and David Tobias, another director, own most of Oak Island, site of the "Money Pit". Blankship was one of about fifty presenters at ideaCity 2004 in Toronto (June 20-22, 2004). The event's promotional materials described Blankenship as a "Treasure Hunter":

"Dan Blankenship says he has uncovered evidence that proves that Nova Scotia's 32-hectare Oak Island is the repository for millions in silver and gold left behind by marauding Spaniards or pirates in the mid-16th century. For three decades, Blankenship (now 80-years-old, he was 42 when he gave up a Miami-based contracting business and brought his family to the province's South Shore) has been trying to uncover the mystery of Oak Island - an area that's been called everything from 'the world's longest and most expensive treasure hunt' to 'one of the great mysteries of the world.'" -- http://www.ideacityonline.com/2004presenters/dan_blankenship.html on 10-May-2005

This picture is from the online version of the ideaCity 2004's promotional materials.

It is unclear which, if any, of the following applies, because a web address of the picture is known as of 5-May-2005, but the original photographer (aka the original "source") is not known.

{{Promophoto}}

{{Fairuseunsure}}

{{fairuseunknownsource}}

{{Promotional}}

Legal battles between Blankenship and Tobias?

A variety of sources on the web, including the recent pdf at http://www.oakislandsociety.ca/feasibility.pdf, have alluded to some sort of legal battle between David Tobias and Dan Blankenship. If this is true, then where has the case or cases been filed? What is the case number? Court records are frequently available to the public. Can somebody get the records and put them on WikiSource or something?

Triton Alliance Ltd.

Is Triton a corporation? If yes, then where was it incorporated? What documents are available and where? Stock certificates? Annual Reports?

First documentation

There's a discrepancy in the artcile.

In one place it says:

the earliest known publicly available written description of the Money Pit is a news article published in the Liverpool Transcript newspaper in October 1862

And almost immediately after that:

The history now begins to become more documented, with a number of articles appearing in the Liverpool Transcript (1857, 1861 and 1862)

Was the first published account in 1862, or do accounts go back to 1857?--198.93.113.49 14:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I've found a list of source on the Critical Enquiry page. These are the 19th century ones

(Author not given), "Correspondence", Liverpool Transcript, 15 Aug., 1857 (Thanks to Linda Rafuse)

(Author not given), "The Oak Island Folly," Nova Scotian newspaper, 29 Aug, 1861 (Thanks to Linda Rafuse)

"Patrick" (response to "The Oak Island Folly"), Nova Scotian newspaper, 30 Sept. 1861.

McCully, J.B., "The Oak Island Diggings", Liverpool Transcript, Oct 1862 (Thanks to Linda Rafuse)

"A Member," "A History of The Oak Island Enterprise," British Colonist, in 3 chapters published on 2, 7, and 14 Jan., 1864 (Thanks to Linda Rafuse)

So it looks like 1857 is the earliest.--198.93.113.49 15:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Can some source this quote

The following quote attributed to Dunfield was added at some point:

We resolved the water problem completely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Water enters through a natural course and caves typical of the limestone and gypsum of the Windsor formation.... This deceives the theory of man-made flood tunnels from which water defeated searchers for the past 170 years.

I've left it in the article for now, but I think it needs a source. I cannot confirm it.--198.93.113.49 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd like a source for this claim as well:

While the results have never been published, interviews conducted with the scientists reveal they were unconvinced of the existence of the fabled "flood tunnel" and believed the flooding of the Pit was of entirely natural origin.

It's from the same editor as the above quote I questioned. I may go ahead and delete them and then put them back if and when there's a source.--198.93.113.49 17:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

---

For the former, the quote appears to be from this thread: http://forum.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=69&start=15 (the original posts seems to have been removed, so the quoted text only appears in followups)

For the latter, see http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/whoi.htm which refers to Aubrey and Gallo at the Woods Hole institute (both can be found via the WHOI site; Gallo is Director of Special Projects)

NPOV dispute

I've tagged this article with NPOV because 192.197.71.189 says this article has a slant and has repeatedly added his own disclaimer saying so. I left a message on his talk page asking that he stop by to clarify what it is that he has a problem with and how it could be corrected. --NormanEinstein 18:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Since the only person who claims that this article is POV refuses to discuss it here, I' removing the NPOV tag. If there is a problem it is imposible to fix it if he won't tell us what it is so the NPOV dispute tag would stay their forever and no one would ever know why it's there.--198.93.113.49 18:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone logs onto Wikipedia each day, and leaving the tag up for a few days is a simple courtesy. If he chooses not to explain his disputes with the current article after several days then it would be appropriate to remove the NPOV tag. --NormanEinstein 20:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggested he bring his issue to the talk page on May 9th. Since then he has vandalized the article numerous times with his single comment but he has never told anyone what he objects too.--198.93.113.49 20:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, etc

Hello,

I run the CriticalEnquiry site and wanted to comment about a few things.

1) the 1857-1862 article dispute: it's true the first article we know of that mentions the Pit is from 1857, but it contains significantly less detail than later versions. Thus it may be more accurate to say that 1857 is the first public mention of the topic in a newspaper, but 1861-2 is when the first detailed account of the alleged early works was published. I'm presently in the process of data entering the entirety of the first detailed article for inclusion on the CriticalEnquiry Web site.

2) The Dunfield "we resolved the water problem..." quote was originally posted on an Oak Island discussion forum by Dunfield's son sometime in 2004. It generated a storm of outrage from the Believers, who claimed it was out of context and inaccurate. The quote came directly from Dunfield's diaries, circa 1966, and I believe it was written after he'd completed a great deal of his excavation work. It was not out of context. However, the quote apparently has been removed from the Forum site by persons unknown.

3) the "interviews conducted with the scientists reveal they were unconvinced of the existence of the fabled "flood tunnel" citation can be found at http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/whoi.htm -- I interviewed several of the scientists and provided a synopsis of their report.

4) the person responsible for the angry notes claiming the present article is "slanted" is a proponent of the treasure theory who consistently derides all dissenting viewpoints. He and others claim there is a great deal of "unpublished evidence in private hands" that confirm the existence of treasure on the island, but refuse to disclose the nature of any of this evidence to those they see as enemies.

(Update 11/14/05)

I removed the reference to the offender's name as requested (that was inappropriate, sorry) but disagree with his assertions below. Many Oak Island "believers" make the assertion that "a great deal of unpublished material exists" to support the treasure story and veracity of the usual "boys finding treasure" legend, but refuse to divulge this material. Thus, it is unavailable for study and should not be thrown up as "proof" that articles that do not support the usual legend are inaccurate or incomplete. The evidence must be produced, or claims of its existence cannot be used to belittle the efforts of those who wish to create a balanced POV for this story.

Regarding the claim that more material lies in the NS Public Archives: I have been in touch with these people repeatedly, and they claim the earliest articles are those from the 1857-1862 period. If the plaintiff below can provide exact references, I'll be happy to obtain and review them.

Hi,

I am the party (angry guy) who has been besmirched in a "comment" (above)on this web page. I wish to firstly state that, I would like very much for the author of that comment, as an act of decent conduct, to remove it as it is slanderous and incorrect. While I may be fairly categorized as a "proponent" of Oak Island history, I am not now, nor have I ever been "involved with Triton”, among other unsubstantiated claims.

I have read the information posted here regarding the Oak Island treasure hunt and I judge it to be a fair appraisal for the average reader who may then want to go elsewhere and discover the full details to make up their own mind as to the veracity of this story. It is however, not without a skeptically biased view point thus making the credibility of the information questionable.

Yes, there is a lot of unpublished Oak Island information, volumes of it, that pertain to the treasure hunt and some of it is from prior to the much toted 1857 newspaper article. Some of it is in the Nova Scotia Public Archives, Dalhousie University Library, many other libraries and in the hands of private collectors all over North America. That it is not available for one and all to view on the internet is most regrettable. Those are however, the facts of life regarding Oak Island material.

While a reference to a posting from Dunfield's son was added here refuting the belief in the existence of the flood tunnel from Smith's Cove, (taken totally out of context by the way), it is interesting to note that he (Dunfield Sr.) has equally been quoted in a Halifax Nova Scotia newspaper as believing in the existence of the reported South Shore flood tunnel. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary on both counts. To take a small portion of a larger letter and hold it up as not being taken out of context, certainly is just that. Any "outrage" was in support of the guiding principles of fair play.

The "Scientists" who have been interviewed by the gentleman who runs the CriticalEnquiry web site either forgot one crucial feature to their examination of Oak Island, or it was omitted on purpose to create a lop sided viewpoint. Their scientific evaluation of Oak Island was not completed. The funding for their study ran out, and their evaluation was never finished, hardly good science to make claims from. These scientists were not the only body of scientific rigor that has been applied to Oak Island either, just so you dear reader fully understand that there is much information to the contrary.

One should always be prepared to operate under reasonable guidelines and never name names in an accusatory fashion on a public site like this. It is a shameful display of poor taste. 24.222.219.23 08:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told I think the article rather starkly concludes it's a natural formation with very little likelyhood of "treasure" and is appropriately NPoV. Wyss 16:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, thank you for your learned posting. Very clever from a fellow who has done so much research to draw such a conclusion......you have done some research on this,...correct??? 24.222.219.23 20:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes and please try to be civil (that would include avoiding uncalled for sarcasm). Thanks. Wyss 00:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Its obvious that Wikipedia (which is a stupid sounding name and sounds like baby formula) is slanted and only allows those who speculate against Oak Island and not allowing those who speculate for Oak Island, calling it a learned opinion. Oak Island is under enough controversey without so called authorities adding insult to injury. If you allow one speculated opinion you have to allow the other.

• Actually, we shouldn't be allowing any speculated opinions, just verfiable content from reliable sources... and look for new Wikipedia:The Formula (now with Iron and vitamin W) at your local grocer, Fall 2007!--Isotope23 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Riptide

I added a reference to the thrilling novel Riptide which was based partly on the Oak Island mystery. Kit 02:42:09, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

–Removed one reference to the novel. It is included by name in first part of the "popular culture" section ("Several works of fiction...") and an additional reference seems redundant. It had more information about the book, but nothing that couldn't be found on the book's own linked article. I considered adding the same information about the other works mentioned, and remove the "Several works...," part, but decided that the short list works fine for these purposes, as further information can be found by following the links (for those works which have them).Noble 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article was in need of much syntax and flow editing, which I have done. I remember reading about this when I was little (nothing seems to have happened since then, except the Woods Hole survey). I tend to think that the kids who first found it either mistook a natural sinkhole (most likely) for something else, or they ran across an abandoned site that had been used for some sort of construction or other work. The site has been so obliterated that it may never be possible to determine what they originally found. I don't know of any proper archaeological records. Wyss 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Large addition of inline citations

I've added a number of citations, and integrated those that were simply listed at the end, in the interests of WP:STYLE. More to come, too. I've also performed some cleanup. Nobody of consequence 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

slight changes to early history

In the "early history" section I removed the reference to a cryptographer (changed it to the more generic "researcher" since there's no evidence any cryptographic analysis was actually performed). Evidence seems to suggest that author and literary figure James DeMille, who was a professor at Dalhousie College in Nova Scotia during the 1860s, is responsible for this translation.

I also added detail about A.T. Kempton and E.R. Snow, their relationship to the symbols, and the fact that the currently known set of symbols only appeared circa 1951 in Snow's book. bloodylance (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links

bloodylance (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I don't recall ever seeing a link to that site before. When was it deleted?

"Who's Avery?"

Probably Henry Every, a.k.a. Long Ben Avery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.10.86 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Original source documents

I've been adding a number of original documents to the Oak Island Treasure archive section - http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/content/view/156/137/ This includes the original coconut fibre carbon dating reports.

Would it be worth adding these actual documents as the primary sources in the article, rather than the secondary sources which currently exist?

Numerous Documents

Numerous Oak Island documents dating to 1753 are available at http://www.oakislandtheories.com with Public Archives of NS Ref Number, etc. Original grant of 1753 made by Governor Lawrence to John Gifford and Richard Smith of New York for fishing (from this Smith it derived the name Smith’s Island until ~1764) , original survey and description of 1764, property deeds and 'lot draws' dating to 1765; Poll Tax records of 1791,92,93,94 showing people living on the island; a property deed showing McGinnis’ first lot purchase of March 1788 and Ball's first purchase during Nov 1788; a first edition History of Lunenburg County which identifies different participants; much family information on the participants, before, during, and after discovery…and much more. This site is pleased to offer the most comprehensive collection of Oak Island documents to be found online, many for the first time in public view)and also provides great insight into the local community of period times.

Through the above documents of unquestionable provenance, we now understand the version and timeline as told by Anthony Vaughan Jr. to be unfounded, and the 1893 Prospectus tale/legend of discovery involving three boys rowing out to an uninhabited island as fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.228.85 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Skull

There are suppose to be 13 Crystal Skulls and only 5 have been found I'm thinking one is on the moon in Shorty Crater and I'm thinking one is on the money pit on Oak Island. I have heard some think the world will come to a end in 2012 and we as humans must bring the 13 skulls together to figure out the secrets to stopping the End of the world.

Mcboo (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Conrad

Probably not, but many things are to be found at Crystal Skulls. See also Long Count and Antikythera Mechanism. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

box drains and triangles?

"The five box drains made from flat stones did exist and were identified and recorded by the Restalls.[14]Oak Island stone triangle formation related to the nearby Birch Island triangle, theorized by First Nations Keith Ranville." The article doesn't mention the drains elsewhere, so the sentence is oddly written. As for the triangles, I'm not sure what that sentence fragment is about at all? Шизомби (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see more on the "Cocos nucifera' fibres. Definitely not a native of that clime, the Vikkins did not use it, and we have no indication that southern folk travelled there in numbers that early.

The radiocarbon date does not compute. Did they know cal BP? Also, the Smithsoinan by when the fibres were ID'd did make mistakes A LOT by modern standards.

Biochemical tests would be useless after time in seawater probably, but a good plant anatomist could recognize something. A fresh sample of material would be necessary. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Notably absent from recent history is the account of the informal organization calling themselves TROUVER (pronounced tru-vey, the French word for “to find”). The group formed in 1967 consisted of three young men; Carl Merz, Eric Hensen and Terry Scheid. They were granted written permission for access and excavation to the site for a brief period of time. In July of 1967 Carl and Eric (both from Deer Park, NY) visited and examined the pit site and the previous dig. A radically different plan for excavation and recovery was devised by them, circumventing the flooding issues. It required a fair investment to implement. The money was never raised and the rights passed back to holder at the time, soon after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.39.231 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaughan ownership of Oak Island

The article makes it sound as though the boys were exploring some previously unknown location. The island had been platted and the parents of Anthony Vaughan owned 7 lots covered with trees on the island including the one directly adjacent to the pit location. The Vaughan family were ship builders and operated a lumber mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.132.65 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This article states that the island is underlain by water filled limestone cavities (anhydrite). Limestone is predominately Calcium carbonate(CaCO3), or Dolomite (Mg,Ca(CO3)2). Anhydrite(CaSO4) is an evaporite mineral closely related to gypsum. Calling anhydrite a limestone is like saying salt is sugar. These form in separate environments, and are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.79.218 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The C-14 date for the wood "platforms"

The In Search of... Oak Island episode said the wood in the platforms was later C-14 dated to 1575. Given C-14 dates are a range rather than an exact date does anyone know who did the dating and what the range was?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the first comment I've ever heard regarding additional C14 dating on the island's artifacts. However, since all the platforms (if they existed) had long vanished prior to the advent of carbon dating, I find this assertion unlikely. Djoltes (talk) 00:54 29 Sep 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Cipher Stone "Translation"

While Barry Fell may be the author of disputed works, calling him a 'crank' does not adhere to WP:NPOV. I suggest the following:

Barry Fell, the author of the disputed. books 'America BC' and 'Saga America', was sent a copy of the inscription by the chief archivist of the Nova Scotia Archives in the late 1970s.

Can we agree on that change? Tgeairn (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

another ficitonal account

Oak Island is referenced in "The Jeffereson Key" by Steve Berry, published 2011.150.198.1.212 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

History Channel, "The Money Pit Of Oak Island"

Currently, this "documentary" is cited for the claim that there is evidence that the Ark of the Covenant lies buried in the Money Pit. Is this really appropriate? Besides the History Channel's own credibility, that particular part of the documentary also suggested that the Ark contained a mysterious artifact left by ancient astronauts/aliens, which gave the Philistines radiation poisoning when they opened the Ark. I'm hesitant to just remove it, as I couldn't find a policy regarding dealing with cites from sources that put out documentaries of lies in addition to regular documentaries. 96.60.50.30 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I ran across the spammish reference in the head today and removed it. This extraordinary claim (without extraordinary proof) is utterly speculative, and inadequately cited. I left a mention in the 'exotic treasure' section, which summarizes several wiggy speculations. At the very least, 'Reliable 3rd party', WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:BURDEN, WP:POORSRC, WP:N all seem to apply. 'A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively'. Twang (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I concurr. The History Channel is not "encyclopedic", it is television; ie, entertainment...the word 'documentary' confuses a lot of people, but it isn't equivalent to 'research'...just sayin'...Engr105th (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

PT Barnum was right!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.221.24 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC) My name is Melissa Lynn Conquest. I enjoy watching the curse of Oak Island

Oak trees?

So on the History show, it said the island used to contain a lot of oak trees (hence the island's name, I assume), which are not native to the area (and thus another oddity about the island). This is probably worth including (as the source of the island's name), if we can find a cite for it. Noel (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why oak trees would be considered as not native to the area. The Nova Scotian government lists red oak as growing in Nova Scotia (http://novascotia.ca/natr/FORESTRY/treeid/), and the Wikipedia article on Red oak does as well. Andrewbore (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but does that mean they are seen occasionally (perhaps as introduced specimens), or that they are common? I ask because my family had a summer house on a large block of forested land on Cape Breton Island (the northern part of Nova Scotia) and I spent many summers there, and did a lot of tree removal, and all I recall are a variety of conifers, some maples and few white birches - I don't recall ever seeing an oak. Now, Oak Island is further south, and perhaps conditions there are different, but... Noel (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) oak trees are my favorite trees I like the oak shaped leaves

Melissa Lynn Conquest Millersburg PA

Smithsonian/carbon dating/Coconuts

Often repeated in the popular literature, but seems to be fabricated. Certainly, a Globe and Mail article is not by any means acceptable as WP:RS here.

All the details suggest the claims are fraudulent or fabricated:

• The Smithsonian is a major-league scientific institution; it's hard to get any bigger than that. You cannot just drop some specimen for testing there; you need serious credentials, connections or money.
• "early 20th century" is so unprecise a date it borders on farcical.
• No name of the Smithsonian scientist is given. And they don't hire bit players. Even their living researchers tend to be such bigshots as to have Wikipedia articles themselves. But if a major authority in the field supported the "buried treasure" stories with their erudite opinion, why not name-drop? If, for example, Paul Carpenter Standley studied the matertial in, say, 1925, there is no reason not to say "the famous botanist P.C. Standley, in 1925, determined..."
• No indication that the data were ever peer-reviewed and published is given.
• No details on research procedures. One pictures P.C. Standley taking a brief glance at a lump of "coconut fibres" and saying "yeah you got coconut fibres, now please leave and stop wasting my precious research time."
• 1960s carbon dating was so much "rocket science" that it is hardly conceivable that such data went unpublished. The technique was only 15 years old and had just received a Nobel prize; it was complicated and expensive.

In a nutshell, the way the Smithsonian/carbon-dating/coconut "facts" are presented (not only in the source given, but in all sources I have seen to date) strongly suggest the are complete fabrications. I have added verification tags at the relevant places. Clearly, a secondary source of scientific merit is needed here, not a tertiary news blurb hacked together from whatever outrageous claims the writer had at their hands. The source that would actually be demanded by these outrageously "precise" (except where it matters - the hard data) claims would be the Smithsonian's in-house report (and whatever institution did the carbon dating - in the 1960s, there weren't very many of them around). If this research actually happened, such reports would be on file there and can be accessed by the public (though they won't be openly accessible - one would need to contact the custodian of records). This report would be citable as a source by the file number on record; since it may be somewhat hard to verify for non-US citizens, if the reports do exist, some data might be given here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis, I've removed the carbon-dating stuff as no reliable source is provided and my searches didn't turn up anything (and as that would have been a big deal at the time, lack of anything is a problem). So far as the Smithsonian statement goes, according to this timeline[1] the source is page 17 of The Oak Island Mystery, 2nd Edition, by Reginald V. Harris, 1967.[2] Harris was a lawyer who worked with Hedden. The 2nd page of the timeline[3] mentions the carbon dating "Wood is carbon-dated to 1490-1660" d[4] Oak Island and Its Lost Treasure: Third Edition does discuss carbon dating of the fibers (but in 1996, not the 1960s). That did give early dates which are dismissed "we have no reasonable explanation for these results, but it is well known that massive effusions of ‘dead’ carbon dioxide (which contains no carbon-14) are discharged during volcanic eruptions. These affect the accuracy of radio-decay dating techniques. Also the earlier discussion, regarding the effect of a lower sea level on the position of the filter drain system, excludes these carbon dates as being representative of the original Smith’s Cove construction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Early history of Oak Island "money pit"

All the pre-1857 history of the "money pit" derives from information provided by J.B. McCully. There are no other sources aside from a permit to dig on the Island issued in 1849. The so-called "conflicting" accounts are usually later attempts at fixing up or changing McCully's story. McCully is the source for almost everything about oak island from the stone with symbols to the gold chain to the oak platforms, flagstones at the top and the idea that there were water tunnels from the shore. He is also the original source for the idea that there was 2 million in treasure in the pit which years later was reflected back in the supposed stone inscription translation. All of the early accounts of the pit were also tied to Captain Kidd's "treasure" and stories supposedly told by one of the Kidd's former crew. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

False Citations

"In 1795, 18-year-old Daniel McGinnis, after observing lights coming from the island, discovered a circular depression in a clearing on the southeastern end of the island. Adjacent to the clearing was a tree with a tackle block on one of its overhanging branches.[4] McGinnis, with the help of friends John Smith (in early accounts, Samuel Ball) and Anthony Vaughan, excavated the depression and discovered a layer of flagstones a few feet below. On the pit walls there were visible markings from a pick. As they dug down they discovered layers of logs at about every 10 feet (3.0 m). They abandoned the excavation at 30 feet (9.1 m).[4]"

The Citation provided does not mention any of the details provided in the paragraph. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Those 19th C. citations might not be journalistically accurate. My great grandfather wrote numerous stories for his local newspaper describing thrilling events with young persons exploring Indian caves by torchlight and finding skeletons and lost treasure. They were of course very tongue-in-cheek. I believe it was customary filler for that time. Lynxx2 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

History Channel

How reliable is the History Channel's coverage? I understand that they over-dramatize it, but there are several discoveries being made. Would news coverage of any findings count? Its a frustrating truth that there is a substantial lack of any real scientific research into treasure-hunting. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't count if there is video footage of the discovery itself. Not sure if those things count as original research or not. Oak Island Kid (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle and Oak Island Kid: It is definitely a situational source. It would be great if there was a quote that's truly indispensibly notable, or that truly illustrates or characterizes the article's substantiated material. Maybe if they give a quote about how difficult life is there, how dangerous the work is, or citing some obscure factoid like how many people have died there. Or to cite that a depiction or reenactment of a particular site or event that's already reliably described in the article. That would basically give a living record of what has always been reliably established through history because we never had copious live footage before. So in other words, I can safely say offhand that we can cite ancillary information there, and I don't know what else. I'm still in the first season of the show. — Smuckola(talk) 08:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle and Oak Island Kid: Okay I finished watching the whole series to date. As for me personally, this is the only example I could find of a meaningful original spoken quotation: S02E01 0:07:51 Regarding the authentication of this coin, he made the figurative observation, "Do you remember, Charles, the statement of 'a 1000 piece puzzle with 400 pieces missing'? Now there's only 399.". That illustrates their perspective on the multidisciplinary difficulty of the job, and the extreme extent of their actual efforts and dedication. That is if it's given in the context of a brief summary of the nature of their efforts to date—just to scan, dive, and dredge a swamp in one corner of the island, just to find a single coin, and to consider this to be a milestone victory. Then they also cite two other famous quotes illustratively such as S02E06 0:37:00 citing Edison's quote about the value of failure, about finding countless ways to fail and then a similar later quote; so citing other people is not compelling. Actually, the text I've written here may be somewhat usable, if I was more familiar with the article's content. As for what exactly happened on the show that may be notably original, I dunno, I guess the life and legacy of Dan Blankenship would be intertwined with the long history of the island. He certainly does retell and relive it in the show to a degree that's worth a brief mention or update. I hope time will tell more! — Smuckola(talk) 10:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dont mean to get off topic but the new episodes get pretty cool ha! But thank you for the clarification. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola and DaltonCastle: do my links to the episodes on The Curse of Oak Island#Episodes help? My biggest concern is that they might violate some Wikipedia law and I don't know if they do or not, but I found Wikipedia:External links and personally see nothing there that would say they shouldn't exist. WP:ELYES #1 actually suggests they should be there as they are the official links to the shows. Is that okay or should I remove them? Oak Island Kid (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think they are fine present there. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola and DaltonCastle: Dear Kid. First, thanks for being so conscientious as to locate and review the policy, and to ask for feedback when it's not perfectly clear. When I saw you add those links, I checked the same thing because on Wikipedia, adding external links within an article body is usually done wrong. Kinda like pull quotes. I think this is the rare case where it's right, lol. It's so weird, I don't wanna believe it, but yeah—the material literally is the subject matter itself (not even just relevant or ancillary to), yet the video content cannot possibly be included here, but it doesn't link to copyright infringement (good guy history channel). — Smuckola(talk) 10:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment

'...currently the subject of...' should be changed to '...the subject of a (months) 2015...' now (rather than waiting for someone putting a dates query 'some time hence'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jjsanchis

@Jjsanchis: You have done amazing work on the article and I wanted to recognize that here for everyone. That research looks rather tough and extensive. Thank you very much and I am happy to help if I can, and I did by copy editing and formatting. I would like to call your attention to the {{clarify}} tag that I had to put on one indecipherable paragraph in this section. I read it a dozen times and I don't know what it means. Please rewrite that carefully with punctuation and grammar. Thank you very much and keep it up. Let me know if I can help. — Smuckola(talk) 10:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: thank you! it does takes a lot of time finding citations online. I'll try to finish the stone work when i have more time on the weekend, and work on a few more areas of interest. appreciate the review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsanchis (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 November 2015 UTC)

Marie Antoinette

The Palace of Versailles was not stormed by revolutionaries in 1789. It was never stormed.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What is being referred to is The March on Versailles of 5 October 1789. You are correct that it was never "stormed". But it was the point when the royals came under the control of the revolutionaries. I've made the appropriate corrections to the wording in the section. I also corrected the theorizing in the section. All events related to digging on Oak Island in the 1700s are apocryphal folk tales with no source earlier than the 1850s. 64.134.168.10 (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Intriguing that the dates for the disappearance of the Crown Jewels, the fall of Versailles, and alleged activity on the Island loosely correlate. Doing "too much too soon" would no doubt be an appropriate conclusion for the area! If there was a fanciful construction of a booby-trapped pit, French engineers would be among those who would know how to accomplish it. (John G. Lewis (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

The problem is that the French Crown Jewels didn't disappear in 1789. Certain parts of the collection was stolen from the Garde Meuble (Royal Treasury) in Paris in 1792, but it seems very unlikely that the King or Queen were in any way involved. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference for naming the show is incorrect

The show takes its name from the local legend that Canadian folklorist Helen Creighton included in her book Folklore of Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia about how seven people must die before the treasure will be found.

There is no such mention in this publication of a curse associated with Oak Island.

In Chapter I, in the first paragraph, Oak Island is mentioned in passing, and then never again.

"From Yarmouth to Cape North, there is a succession of bay and inlets, but none of these could have been more tempting to a pirate than Mahone Bay with its 365 islands. one for every day of the year. Oak Island is the best known; it has attracted international interest and many thousands of dollars have been spent in excavations over a long period of years. The mystery of the man-made supports that were found under the ground has never been solved, but their presence stimulates the general belief in the reality of the buried treasure."

____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.94.141 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. The first mention I have been able to find of the "seven must die" thing is in an episode of the TV series "in search of" from 1979. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate advertising

The mention of the show ", and is the subject of the History Channel's series The Curse of Oak Island." seems inappropriate in the introduction. The show should be mentioned further down the article. It seems like advertising to mention it at the very start of the article.

The next section is even more troublesome. It not only mentioned the TV series again, it throws up every conspiracy theory in the book in a way that seems very related to the show rather than the history of Oak Island. If all that junk needs to be in the article, it should be far down the article after the confirmed history of the Island is presented.

The section on the television show should just describe the TV show in brief. The "teasers" for the supposed "discoveries" at the end of the first and second seasons should not be mentioned.64.134.168.10 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the TV series doesn't belong in the introduction so I made the edit. It does belong in the pop culture section, although the claims should be presented in a more balanced and less POV manner.Dan Conlin (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Subterranean Chamber

Two of the article's details seem contradictory, or at least the combination seems highly improbable. If bedrock starts at 45 meters below the surface, then folks from the 18th century would have found it staggeringly difficult to construct a "subterranean chamber" at a depth of 60 meters below the surface. Catsmoke (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The depth of the bedrock under the island is not uniform. The highest bedrock point is at 45m. But not all bedrock is at 45m. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Roman outpost claims

First, this isn't a news article and we shouldn't be responding immediately to newspaper stories, which often in any case either get things wrong or give incomplete coverage - their role is to sell papers, not to publish scientific findings, remmber. The sword stuff is just nonsense, there are similar swords available elsewhere, eg on ebay.[5] The Roman shield boss seems just dishonest as it was discovered in 1792 in England.[6] Of all the Oak Island claims, this has less credibility than most and at least at the moment I don't think it belongs. See also [7]and [8]. Doug Weller talk

Forgot. The "Ancient Artifact Preservation Society"[9] is just another fringe group, sponsored in part by the Mormon Wayne May. His magazine reflects an LDS perspective also.[10].

A bit more on J Hutton Pulitzer, who seems to be the man behind all of this. He's the inventor of the CueCat. Another Colavito post.[11] Here's some of his self-published material on Amazon.[12] He is certainly a good publicist. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Redacting statement about being dishonest, as I can't be sure of that and Pulitizer is litigious. But I can quote him about the sword. At one of his websites he wrote " The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas." He even linked to our article True north. But of course magnets point to the North Magnetic Pole. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A claim like this would need very strong references to warrant inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The stories are problematical. The person who claimed to have discovered the sword is long dead and the sword passed through many hands before being revealed. There isn't an eyewitness account or a strong chain of custody that establishes where the sword came from. The sword might be Roman, but there is no way to establish absolutely that it actually came from that area. There is lots of talk about a Roman shipwreck. But until they show the actual wreck in the ocean and/or bring up roman materials from a wreck, its all just talk. 75.17.125.26 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And it turns out to be almost certainly not Roman.[13][14]. Now that the tv show itself has said that this alleged "100% confirmed" sword isn't, maybe it's worth a small note somewhere, I don't know. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

source for the "seven must die" curse story

I've found what seems possibly to be the source of the "seven must die" curse story. Its in the Dalhousie Review, Volume 57, Number 4, 1978. The story is written by Joan Clark and I think it was intended as fiction. Its told by a woman who lived near Oak Island in childhood. She claims she heard the story of the curse from an adult neighbor (Mrs. Nauss) in the early 1960s. The story is about a woman having "premonition" abilities and recounts being able to find the body of a missing person for the police. She also claims that she had a premonition dream predicting the "Restall" deaths in the 1960s. Then she tells a story about some woman seeing visions of where the treasure actually is and then dying on the Island. The central character predicts that death in the story as well. I have yet to find any account of the curse older than this one. It was also published just a year before the "in search of" TV show episode which also talks about "seven must die". I'm leaving this for reference purposes on the talk page. 75.17.126.6 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Kempton and the inscribed stone

Joltes writes about this.[15] He calls the inscription an egregious fraud and says "there are no known descriptions of the "original" Money Pit stone -- if indeed such a stone ever existed in the first place." Doug Weller talk 10:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That isn't quite correct. There are vague descriptions of the stone. The stone was described for the first time in 1862. But the story is suspect because its describing events in great detail that supposedly happened in 1805 and because the author later gives an excuse as to why the stone can't be seen (its not only built into a chimney, its built into a chimney surrounded by wood and staircases). The next detail is added in 1893. Its claimed that the stone was translated at an unknown time by persons unknown in Halifax to read “Ten feet below are two million pounds buried.”. The final addition to the story is the addition of the symbols by Kempton. Kempton's account is that a unnamed (then-deceased) minister contacted an unnamed (also-deceased) irish schoolteacher who provided the information. Kempton claimed he had a manuscript written by the teacher, but nobody ever saw it. All the stories of the stone are suspect and each is a slightly more elaborate version of the previous story. The 1862 story is suspect because its describing in great detail events from 1805 and when asked to produce the stone, a lame story is provided to explain why its not possible. The 1893 story is suspect because it fails to provide the names of anyone involved. As well, Kempton's story is not credible because he mentions two people but does not provide their names and states that they are both deceased. The only descriptions of the stone come from people raising money for treasure hunts. While they assure us that "thousands" saw the stone, there are no historical accounts by third parties who saw the stone. 75.17.126.74 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate advertising

The mention of the show ", and is the subject of the History Channel's series The Curse of Oak Island." seems inappropriate in the introduction. The show should be mentioned further down the article. It seems like advertising to mention it at the very start of the article.

The next section is even more troublesome. It not only mentioned the TV series again, it throws up every conspiracy theory in the book in a way that seems very related to the show rather than the history of Oak Island. If all that junk needs to be in the article, it should be far down the article after the confirmed history of the Island is presented.

The section on the television show should just describe the TV show in brief. The "teasers" for the supposed "discoveries" at the end of the first and second seasons should not be mentioned.64.134.168.10 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the TV series doesn't belong in the introduction so I made the edit. It does belong in the pop culture section, although the claims should be presented in a more balanced and less POV manner.Dan Conlin (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion was pulled from the archives so that it can be seen that the issue of the advertising for the TV show has been previously discussed and the consensus, after an appropriate time for comment, was to remove the advertising for the TV show from the introduction and the various other locations it had been placed in the article. I can personally see no reason for including information in the introduction about a specific television program when the same information is appropriately included in the proper section later in the article. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the frequent mentions of a particular TV series give WP:UNDUE weight, and verge on being overly promotional. Most of the details about the series should be covered in the separate Wikipedia article (The Curse of Oak Island) and not duplicated here. Reify-tech (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I agree also. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

early history section

With regard to the early history of the money pit, it is important to note that there is no history or sources prior to the 1850s. Further, that many of the pre-1890's sources tell different or even conflicting stories. It is important, however it is done, that the voice of Wikipedia NOT be used to make authoritative statements with regard to the early history of the money pit. The article can say that the sources conflict with each other, the article can cite what specific sources have said in the past. But the article should be careful not to draw conclusions or to suggest that a particular statement is true. Its better to err on the side of neutrality rather than claiming that particular undocumented early accounts are true or false. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop adding disclaimers in the form of Original Research. What specific sentences do you find problematic? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Before tonight's edits the article stated the 1795 date as fact, which we shouldn't do. We can report what the sources say but obviously not go beyond them. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The entire section was problematic. The disclaimers were added because the entire section itself was somewhat Original Research constructed by cherry-picking from multiple different inconsistent accounts of events from different time periods. I've tried to address the problems in a new way by sticking strictly to what the early sources said and when they said them. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into two seperate articles, one which talks about the Island in general, and one that focuses solely on the mystery/alleged treasure. If there are no objections, I plan on creating Oak Island mystery or Oak Island treasure to focus on this aspect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If the article is split, the oak island article is going to have about ten lines in it. I don't really care one way or the other but its worth thinking about how little is going to be left after a split. But I would strongly suggest not calling the split article by a title like "Oak Island Treasure". I think "Oak Island Treasure Hunt" or mystery or anything that didn't imply a conclusion about the island is better. 75.17.127.43 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

locations images in infobox

I think there needs to another image for the location, specifically of North America-Canada region to show readers exactly where in the world that the current image is located. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Frederick G. Nolan

Fred is best known for hos role with Oak Island, beyond that there isn't really enough notability for a stand alone article. For this reason I am proposing that the article be merged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• support doesn't really have his own notability -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Against If there is any merge, it makes more sense to merge and redirect to The Curse of Oak Island, not this article. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing, due to the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Drain tunnels

The drains on Oak Islands were built by British engineers. The used the Chain which was 66 feet as the 1836 article mentioned. I was trained as a BC Land Surveyor and this unit was used all across Canada.

Ken Murray Silverton BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.160.220.15 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Your theory is interesting, but without a reliable source we cant state this in the article Oak Island mystery. There are also many other theories on Oak Island that involve constellations to the supernatural. We would go with the mainstream theories first while the secondary ones would be outside of the main text (example: "Other theories"). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate reporting

This article is inaccurate in content, speaking as a Daniel McGinnis descendent! RMorholt (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RMorholt, welcome to Wikipedia. What specifically about the content of this article do you feel is inaccurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)