Oak Island for sale

[Story]

http://www.livescience.com/history/051107_...oak_island.html

For Sale: Island with Mysterious Money Pit

By Heather Whipps

Special to LiveScience

posted: 07 November 2005

09:39 am ET

It may look like a fixer-upper at first glance, but what is buried beneath scrubby little Oak Island might just make its estimated $7 million price tag worth the investment.

Oak Island, in Nova Scotia, is famous for its Money Pit, a mystery that has endured two centuries, claimed six lives and swallowed up millions in life savings.

The Pit was discovered in 1795 by a local boy named Daniel McGinnis who, spotting an unusual clearing in the earth under one of the island's oak trees, was prompted to start digging. The discovery of layered planks, mysterious stone slabs, and mats made of coconut fibers descending deep into the ground turned his casual afternoon dig into an all-out excavation.

Investors and thrill-seekers would eventually jump in and continue the work, kicking off one of the world's longest running treasure hunts.

Complex trap

What appears to be a complex flooding trap has thwarted efforts to reach the bottom of the Money Pit ever since. Some think the pit was purposely flooded with seawater, via a series of artificial swamps and tunnels, to hide its contents.

Through the murk, drill borings and shafts dug by the island's series of owners have detected what seem to be cement vaulting, wooden chests, and scraps of parchment paper. Radiocarbon dating of these artifacts is consistent: whoever constructed the shaft likely did so sometime in the 16th Century.

Speculation about the contents of Oak Island's Money Pit range from the treasure of the Knight's Templar to Shakespeare's original manuscripts.

Oak Island's current owners, Dan Blankenship and David Tobias, have worked on the island since the 1960s, sinking millions of dollars into the project and revealing some intriguing clues of their own. For many who follow Oak Island developments, their abandonment of the treasure comes as a surprise. As recently as December of 2003, Blankenship told the Halifax Herald that he would announce some new, exciting findings in the following months. The revelation never came.

What's it worth?

The treasure's fate -- assuming there is treasure -- now rests on the outcome of the sale. Court-appointed liquidators in Nova Scotia are currently wrapping up the evaluation of Oak Island's market worth, with an announcement expected before the end of the year.

A growing movement led by the Oak Island Tourism Society calls for the governments of Canada or Nova Scotia to purchase Oak Island and exploit its potential as a major attraction. It seems for now the governments have little interest in throwing their hats into the ring of potential bidders, and that has many who've follow the island's saga breathing sighs of relief.

"The ideal candidate would be an individual or group with a genuine interest in and means to carry out professional archaeological work", Mark Finnan, author of "Oak Island Secrets" (Formac, 1997) told LiveScience in an e-mail interview.

Finnan believes Oak Island has not seen the last of the aging treasure-seeker Dan Blankenship, either.

"He has a strong hunch about the nature of the treasure and may yet pass on his findings to the new owners of the land or even participate in a new exploration effort," Finnan said.

[hitman]

Lambs to the slaughter?

[Fox]

THERE'S NOTHING THERE!!! No secrets, no treasure, no booby traps, not even a damn pit! There might have been archaeology once, but that's not there any more either.

Sorry for the shouting, just hoping that anyone stupid enough to think about bidding on it might hear.

[hitman]

Foxe Foxe Foxe

You sir have no adventure in your soul

Your almost certiantly right but still if you got the dough why not blow it on a beautiful island in the far north Excellent place for nice summer home and plenty of mystery to inthrall the house guest's not to mention many convient hole's for the Mother in law to accidently fall into

[Capn_Enigma]

Foxe Foxe Foxe

[...] not to mention many convient hole's for the Mother in law to accidently fall into 

Hence the expression "Foxe Holes".

[Fox]

You sir have no adventure in your soul

I've got plenty of adventure. Digging whacking great holes to find a non-existent treasure just doesn't seem very adventurous to me. Gimme a jungle and some pygmies with blow-pipes and a fabulous idol and a big rolling boulder and some booby-traps (how I love to fall into booby-traps) and a fedora and a bloke with a big scimitar anyday... actually, that might make a good film...

...but still if you got the dough why not blow it on a beautiful island in the far north

Would "because if I had the dough I think a beautiful island in the South Seas might be nicer" be an acceptable answer?

[Capn_Enigma]

Seems to me that although the existence of a treasure on Oak Island is as of yet not proven, just stating "There is none" doesn't disprove anything.

[Fox]

Absolutely, there might be a fabulous treasure located on Oak Island. By the same token though the Holy Grail and the complete Shakespeare manuscripts might be buried in my garden. The evidence for either is just as good, and the chances are just as high for either case.

The sum evidence (actual evidence mind, not made up stuff) for there being anything buried on Oak Island is that in 1795 Daniel McGinnis found a dip in the ground in a clearing in the undergrowth with a block and tackle hanging from a nearby tree. That's it. Until it was landscaped in the late 80s there were dips and holes all over my garden too.

[Capn_Enigma]

The sum evidence (actual evidence mind, not made up stuff) for there being anything buried on Oak Island is that in 1795 Daniel McGinnis found a dip in the ground in a clearing in the undergrowth with a block and tackle hanging from a nearby tree. That's it.

You have been rather badly misinformed.

After digging, McGinnis found a layer of flagstones and thereafter, a layer of logs every 10 feet.

McGinnis abandons the digging at a depth of 30 feet.

In 1804, the Onslow Company arrived at the Money Pit and resumed digging, finding more layers of wooden logs, charcoal, putty and coconut fibre at 40, 50 and 60 feet. They kept on digging until they reached 98 feet, where they struck something that sounded like another wooden platform. By that time, the soil of the Pit had become waterlogged and they had started to bail out the water. Since the sun was setting, they decided to call it a day and knock it off. When they returned the next morning, they discovered that the Pit was flooded up to the 33 foot marking, and the water could not be bailed out.

Seems to me that there is pretty convincing evidence that someone made a large effort to hide something on Oak Island.

[Rumba Rue]

Well gee with all the holes dug in the thing, it could just fill up with water and disappear....one good tidal wave....whoosh....gone.

[Fox]

You have been rather badly misinformed.

Right back at ya I'm afraid Cap'n

In 1860 two prospective treasure hunters gave a news-paper interview outlining the stuff so far found on Oak Island. They were hoping to attract investors and on the back of that interview collected several thousand dollars.

Unfortunately they also created a lot of credence in their summary. Prior to that 1860 interview there is absolutely no record whatsoever of anything being found. There are no Onslow Company reports to tell us about layers of flag-stones or logs or anything else, everything we "know" about Oak Island excavations prior to 1860 comes from that single, and frankly rather dubious, newspaper piece.

The story has some massive massive flaws in it, not the least of which is that having supposedly gone to such lengths to hide something the original treasure-buriers apparently left such obvious clues as to the whereabouts of the pit that a 12 year old boy was able to find it?!?! I don't think so.

The reason so many people have lost fortunes (and sadly one or two of them have lost their lives) chasing after the Oak Island treasure is that they've believed everything they've been told about layers of logs and coconut matting, they've believed the reports of treasure chests being found by core drilling and they've believed the stuff about fragments of stone engraved with coded messages being found. Sadly, in actual truth, nothing of the kind can be shown to have been found.

[Story]

12 year old boys can find many things that adults would ordinarily miss. Perhaps you just didn't have a properly misspent youth?

And if anyone *did* successfully find treasure over the last 200 something years, do you really think they'd tell anyone?

Dead men tell no tales, eh?

[Capn_Enigma]

In 1860 two prospective treasure hunters gave a news-paper interview outlining the stuff so far found on Oak Island. [..] Prior to that 1860 interview there is absolutely no record whatsoever of anything being found.

Another misinformation. I know of at least one newspaper account in the Liverpool Transscript wherein the Money Pit is mentioned already in 1857.

There may be more, but this is one I am aware of before 1860.

Perchance you should check your sources, sir.

[Fox]

I would be interested to know exactly what the 1857 Liverpool Transcript article said. I'm not suggesting that nobody had ever heard of Oak Island prior to 1860, merely that the essential elements of the legend (the oak platforms etc) cannot be traced with any certainty to any time earlier than that. Since I am working from memory 1860 was an approximate date (I thought it was the actual date, but that might well be my mind playing tricks on me) and I may in fact be thinking of the 1857 article. Incidentally, are you sure you're not thinking of the 1862 Liverpool Transcript article written by J.B. McCully?

However, even if the 1857 article does list all the common elements of the legend, that is not really any less dubious than an article of 1860 (or thereabouts) is it? The fact remains that the description of all these wonderful things discovered in the Money Pit still originates from a heresay source dating to at least half a century after the discovery and initial excavations. :)

If McGinnis himself had reported finding oak platforms or the Onslow Company had kept records of their "discoveries" then it would still be suspect, but at least it would be first hand. As it is though, the only records we have of those crucial early finds (which really have formed the basis of every subsequent excavation attempt) are extremely dubious, coming from non-contemporary sources with known ulterior motives.

The earliest first hand account of the diggings at Oak Island (pending the 1857 article) appears to be the 1862 article by McCully who describes taking part in the boring sometime after 1849 (presumably 1850 or later). In that article even McCully himself admits that he can't be certain about what was found in the early excavations!

Subsequent, better recorded excavations have failed to find any sign of the oak platforms, coconut matting, or flood tunnel. The artefacts reportedly recovered from the pit pre-1860(ish) have all entirely disappeared - rather conveniently.

I'm sorry, the Oak Island legend is attractive but you've really got to be kidding yourself if you take any of it seriously.

There is no evidence that there was ever anything found on Oak Island

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah I'm reading the "Pirates and the Lost Templar Fleet" book now...while fun, it's quite far fetched and most of the book is incredibly implausible. I'm at the Oak Island stuff right now, and there appears to be NOTHING this author won't credit the Knights Templar with!

[Coastie04]

appears to be NOTHING this author won't credit the Knights Templar with!

Don't forget that large shaft under the Boston cemetery with a really large treasure in it. They really did find that one, and to prove it, they made a movie a couple of years ago about it. If it's been shown in Hollywood, it must be true, right? No way they could have come up with all that on their own.

Coastie

[Capn_Enigma]

I would be interested to know exactly what the 1857 Liverpool Transcript article said.

Avec plaisir!

But if the great Foxe says that there is no treasure, so be it!

[Fox]

But if the great Foxe says that there is no treasure, so be it!

To quote something I read recently "I am not so egotistical as to suppose that my positions are invariably correct, my arguments always unanswerable or my statements to be swallowed without consideration..."

If I state something or express an opinion it is because I believe it. If I believe it then it is because I have some cause to believe it. If it can be shown that I am wrong then I'll gladly concede, so there's no need to start getting snide just because I disagree with you.

In this particular case though the 1857 piece (thankyou very much for taking the time to post it) makes no mention of the platforms and what-not supposedly found by the early excavators, so my original point still stands that the first we ever hear of oak platforms and coconut matting comes after 1860, more than half a century after their supposed discovery, from someone completely unconnected with their discovery and who had a very strong ulterior motive in making the pit sound more interesting than in fact it was.

:)

So, pending any other early reports surfacing I'll repeat my original assertion: there's no evidence that McGinnis and his friends, or the Onslow Company, found anything of interest in the pit. There's no evidence that they found oak log platforms or coconut matting or that later expeditions found stone tablets with coded messages or man-made flood tunnels.

There is no evidence that any such thing as the "Money Pit" really exists, or ever existed except in the imagination of small boys and credulous adults.

There might be a fabulous Templar/Kidd/Inca/Alien/<insert wacky theory here> treasure buried at Oak Island. The Holy Grail and the rare "Pope John Paul" issue of Playboy might be buried in my garden. The evidence is just as good for either supposition.

[Capn_Enigma]

There is no evidence that any such thing as the "Money Pit" really exists, or ever existed except in the imagination of small boys and credulous adults.

Whatever you say, sir.

If I state something or express an opinion it is because I believe it.

I happen to concur with the immortal Dirty Harry on the subject of opinions.

[hitman]

If I state something or express an opinion it is because I believe it. If I believe it then it is because I have some cause to believe it. If it can be shown that I am wrong then I'll gladly concede, so there's no need to start getting snide just because I disagree with you.

Foxe a quick question for you sir,

I've seen enough of your posts to come to some judgment of your charchter albeit from this rather limited source and have no doubt you would if proven wrong admit it. My question however is has anyone ever bested the "Great Foxe" here in Captin Twill. I know despite my best effort I am normally sent packing like an elementry schooler in a debate with a college proffesor.

[Capn_Enigma]

[My question however is has anyone ever bested the "Great Foxe" here in Captin Twill.

I wasn't aware that this was a pi$$ing contest.

While it is generally accepted that there is something down the Money Pit, Foxe has the opinion that there is not, and that's that. Can't argue against opinions.

[Fox]

[My question however is has anyone ever bested the "Great Foxe" here in Captin Twill.

I wasn't aware that this was a pi$$ing contest.

That's about my thought

The thing is, there's not usually a right or wrong answer with the kind of minutae that gets discussed here. OK, somebody might say "they didn't have checked shirts" and I would prove 'em wrong by quoting ASC sources, but on the whole there's no cut and dry answer. So, no, I don't recall anyone having "bested" me as such - people have changed my opinion by producing good sources and sensible conlusion based thereon, and I hope I've changed other peoples' opinions in the same manner. Occasionally I've admitted being wrong when someone's come up with something that I'd never even heard of, more often I've done it to myself (see this message from another board for example).

The other thing, and I'd really recommend this to anyone who feels they get into too many arguments, is just not to post unless you're pretty damn sure you can support your argument with facts. If it's a topic about which I don't know much I'll just leave it alone.

But, as Enigma says, it's not a contest. If I thought it was I'd stop posting. Having said that, as long as others keep arguing then I will too.

While it is generally accepted that there is something down the Money Pit, Foxe has the opinion that there is not, and that's that. Can't argue against opinions.

My opinion is based entirely on the facts and evidence (or lack total thereof) in this particular case. The opposing opinion is based on romance and wishful thinking (Seriously, show me some actual evidence that anyone ever found oak platforms etc and I'll change my opinion in an instant). You can't argue against opinions, but if you disagree with them you can try to change them with facts and evidence. When someone produces some I'll change mine, until then I'll just continue to giggle behind my hands at credulous folks who believe everything they are told without questioning it.

Enigma, my opinion is based on the evidence, what's yours based on?

[kaizoku]

That's about my thought

The thing is, there's not usually a right or wrong answer with the kind of minutae that gets discussed here. OK, somebody might say "they didn't have checked shirts" and I would prove 'em wrong by quoting ASC sources, but on the whole there's no cut and dry answer. So, no, I don't recall anyone having "bested" me as such - people have changed my opinion by producing good sources and sensible conlusion based thereon, and I hope I've changed other peoples' opinions in the same manner. Occasionally I've admitted being wrong when someone's come up with something that I'd never even heard of, more often I've done it to myself (see this message from another board for example).

The other thing, and I'd really recommend this to anyone who feels they get into too many arguments, is just not to post unless you're pretty damn sure you can support your argument with facts. If it's a topic about which I don't know much I'll just leave it alone.

But, as Enigma says, it's not a contest. If I thought it was I'd stop posting. Having said that, as long as others keep arguing then I will too.

While it is generally accepted that there is something down the Money Pit, Foxe has the opinion that there is not, and that's that. Can't argue against opinions.

My opinion is based entirely on the facts and evidence (or lack total thereof) in this particular case. The opposing opinion is based on romance and wishful thinking (Seriously, show me some actual evidence that anyone ever found oak platforms etc and I'll change my opinion in an instant). You can't argue against opinions, but if you disagree with them you can try to change them with facts and evidence. When someone produces some I'll change mine, until then I'll just continue to giggle behind my hands at credulous folks who believe everything they are told without questioning it.

Enigma, my opinion is based on the evidence, what's yours based on?

Foxe, I respect your opinions but I would like to ask if the whole proof thing is what is holding you back from believing that there may be something down there. Perhaps you would answer to me this, do you believe we landed on the moon? If you say no, well ok then, but if yes what proof do you have other than people telling you we did?

I am not trying to be rude, by no means, but I feel that its unfair stance vs the other side to state there is nothing there because you dont think(there is no proof for either side i know) that they had found the platforms. Even if they didn't for all we know there is something down there. There may not be, but don't you see it as a bit of bashing everyone elses theories because of one excavation not being recorded.

Me personally, I agree with you and feel there probably isn't anything there but I don't disregard all their theories just because an excavation wasn't recorded if it happened.

And if there is something there I hope it stays down there, history only lasts as long as we allow it... uprooting it will take away from why it was put there... The people that would find it are the rich excavators that don't care about the treasure and just want to money they would get for finding it.

My hats tipped to ye Foxe and all the others in this debate but I feel that this is one that will not be won for either side until it is fully excavated.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I think what is throwing off the unbelievers is that there is no evidence that there ever was any timbers, coconut matting, etc etc.

Did someone go through there over 100 years ago and clean the place up so thoroughly that there is not even a coconut molecule left?

gof

[Fox]

Kaizoku, I take your point.

I do believe that men have landed on the moon because a: there is some reasonable evidence that it happened, and b: the people saying that someone has landed on the moon are in fact the people who actually did it.

If, on the other hand, we'd never seen that famous footage, or heard Armstrong and Aldrin giving interviews etc, and then in about 2020 somebody said "Hey, in 1969 two guys walked on the moon, now we're trying to raise money to do it again so please send your donations to..." then I (and everyone else) would be somewhat more suspicious. Nobody would believe it, so why do people find the existence of the Oak Island pit so believable?

If you check my earlier posts you'll see my stance is very clear. There might well be a "Money Pit", and there might well be a fabulous treasure, but the argument is equally good that that there is a fabulous treasure in my garden. There is absolutely as much evidence for either supposition. I'm not trying to prove the existence or non-existence of the pit, I'm trying to prove that a belief in the existence of the pit has no basis whatsoever in fact.

I feel that its unfair stance vs the other side to state there is nothing there because you dont think(there is no proof for either side i know) that they had found the platforms. Even if they didn't for all we know there is something down there.

Without the existence of the oak platforms etc what else is there to indicate the existence of the money pit? Since the existence of the oak platforms is highly suspicious at best it really does call into doubt the whole existence of a deep pit at all. I don't believe that there's anything at the bottom of the money pit for the simple reason that I don't believe there is, or ever was, a money pit as such.