Talk:Oak Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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}}

[edit] 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?

[edit] Triton Alliance Ltd.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?