Why conical boulders

Please post your theories for discussion here. Expect plenty of questions and devil's advocacy.

Moderators: Jo, admiralbenbow, Keeled_over

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:33 pm

I certainly respect your opinion,in part and having read your work you certainly know what you are talking about but I'm going to leave that part in the air till a later date after finishing this,then I can concentrate on re-learning a few mathematical subjects and more about navigation.

You have your hypothesis which I have no doubt you are 100% convinced about,same with me and if we could only get the Lagina brothers to listen we could save them an awful lot of money.Who knows,we could both be right or if I'm the one who is wrong I could live with it.
Now for Location G (for definite)
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby . . . on Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:08 am

I’ve no conviction that my hypothesis is correct, but I do think the approach is right. I believe in archival research, and I believe in formulating hypotheses that can be tested - speedily, cheaply and with a minimum of surface disturbance. My hypothesis is founded on both, but I don’t claim that anyone would save money, or become rich, by checking it out. All they’d get from the test I’ve been proposing all these years is a hint of whether or not this mode of thinking could be on the right track.

But I have to say, after three decades of not knowing, I’m near to not caring!
User avatar
. . .
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:36 am

What kind of tests were you proposing?
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby . . . on Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:51 pm

Dave Wood wrote:What kind of tests were you proposing?

You’re probably aware that my initial hypothesis is that a deposit on Oak Island need not have been in the Money Pit, and had this been the case there could have been instructions for locating it, perhaps as a contingency measure (the originator might die in a shipwreck, in a duel, or a war etc.)

Of course, this would have meant committing the secret to paper, and it would follow that the instructions would have to be disguised in some way. What’s more, it would be best for the instructions to be based on permanent ground markers, such as those found on the island. However, note well that ‘experts’ say these aren’t original, that they’re randomly placed rocks etc.

The hypothesis is that the ground markers may have been placed according to a schema, a geometrical construction, and that its form might be deduced from what we know about where the markers were placed. In this event, the likely location of a treasure deposit might become obvious from the reconstructed plan.

I further assumed that the instructions provided by the originator might well be the cryptic messages appearing on the despised Wilkins and Palmer maps. However, note well that ‘experts’ say that these are not only nonsense, but also that the maps don’t apply to Oak Island.

The first test of my reconstruction of the ground plan was to determine whether the instructions on the maps make any sense when applied to it. It so happens that they do: they identify seven regularly spaced points on a rhombus design between the rocks (forming a ‘W’,) and I tend to assume that the focus may be its centre.

The main problem is that because a bunch of mindless gold-diggers destroyed the ground features fundamental to locating this point, there’s nowhere to start - except maybe the Mallon Triangle. In 1984, I approached Triton to see if I might be allowed to search for this feature - to check out whether or not it really existed - to survey it, photograph it, and give all the information to them, all at my expense. I got the standard Triton reply of, “we know more about Oak Island than you do.”

The proposed test of the hypothesis was based on the assumption that the originator had surveyed the island, and may well have placed survey markers at key points. If I had correctly deduced his plan then it might be possible to plug into the original survey, and find traces of it, by working through the reconstruction using the bearings and distances indicated.

Had the drilled rocks and triangles still been in place, these would have provided an instant test of the reconstruction. Consider also that, if correctly reproduced, the survey might have revealed other features that I understand have been moved, such as the heart stone, and ‘G’ stone. Obviously, when digging for gold, archaeology is truly rubbish!

My suggested reconstruction ultimately spreads across the island, incorporates Nolan’s Cross, and attempts to include the Pirate Stones Triangle. It also suggests significant points on the edges of the swamp, and on the roadway.

I could never get anything out of Dan Blankenship and David Tobias, and they ended up not bothering to reply to my mail. I sent a dozen or so letters to Fred Nolan to see if I could desk-check my reconstruction against his survey of the island, to see if any of the markers on his land tallied with points on my plan, but he’s never replied. I approached the ‘MI Group,’ but they were busy doing other things.

So, as nobody was interested in helping me test the hypothesis, I decided to publish updated versions of my books, and get Oak Island out of my life for good - and I do feel much better for having done so.

I imagine that a test of your hypothesis would embody much the same activity - that is, looking for markers on a plan. I think this is a reasonable way to proceed - after all, it’s what Petter Amundsen did.

People don't seem ready yet to concede that the Money Pit may be the real booby trap on the island, that the deposit was planned to be elsewhere, and that its location may be identifiable. The very idea is thought to be crazy. It’s considered far more intelligent to plough money into a hole in the ground that’s produced nothing but bankruptcy, disaster, and despair for over 200 years!
User avatar
. . .
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:26 am

I have had the same problems more or less in getting them to listen,but it being their island and their venture I can't blame them for doing it their way,although they seem to be thrashing around like others before them rather than taking into account the markers that have been left behind for a purpose.Any theories utilising those markers were they viable would be worth checking out.
I agree with you 100% in what you say in the last paragraph.In the case of what I've described since post 1, I think it all could very well be a ruse to keep the uninitiated busy in that area hence their reason for blatantly pointing out the MP position through the use of location F.They didn't point out the position of the Triangle that way which is needed for location G.I am 50/50 as to whether there is anything at F, or there is at least a token gesture of whatever to say "here,you have found what you were looking for,now go home" and further kept busy with the MP and we all know what that produces.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby . . . on Wed Dec 24, 2014 3:23 am

It’s good you’re philosophical about this because, as you say, they’re calling all the shots. I got to the same point. IMO, Triton was not at all open-minded about the solution to the Oak Island mystery, but they certainly did want to solve it. The problem is that they decided they knew what the answer is, and more significantly what it is not.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the lack of sensitivity to the possible importance of the ground markers goes back to Triton’s formative years in the 1960s, when nobody could give a damn about anything peripheral to the Money Pit, and were quite happy to destroy anything that got in their way.

Furthermore, if people are obsessive about the Money Pit then, of course, they’re going to minimise the possible importance of the ground markers, and ignore anyone who thinks these might have been a key factor in the enterprise.

Sensibly, if someone is trying to drum up financial support for a Big Dig, it wouldn’t be a good idea to have people discussing the possibility, or likelihood, that the Money Pit is a waste of time! The sad thing is that this rubs off on other people.

That’s more or less how I rationalise it. After all, it is their island, and if I owned it then, in much the same way, there’s a good chance I wouldn’t be particularly interested in financing massively expensive projects at the Money Pit! :)
User avatar
. . .
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:05 am

One thing I need to add regarding the triangle and it's association with Francis Bacon is what I consider to be a beautiful and enterprising example of the designers encryption and his brilliance.
In 1959 Laverne Johnson re-discovered the Triangle under the overhanging branches of a SPRUCE tree which can live for 400yrs+-,in the case of Black Spruce through a process called layering can live 1000's of years.

The Triangle when halved consists of two 90-30-60d triangles.
First taking the name Bacon at 2131413 and adding a 0 ..21314130 - 903060 = 20411070

Adding the bearings from OI to Old Gorhambury House and the bearing back to OI at 56d 16m/303d 44m the 303 44 being the remainder of the compass,and 286d 37m/73d 23m respectively as calculated by the designer.

20411070 + 561630344 + 286377323 = 868418737

The name of Francis..6171133918 - 868418737 = 5302715181 and read in reverse 1815172035

18-S 15-P 17-R 20-U 3-C 5-E...SPRUCE
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:20 am

Here in New Zealand in the Southern hemisphere we have a good view in the night sky of the Southern Cross,a group of stars re-discovered by Portuguese navigators which is only visible below 25d N latitude and was used by them to determine the approximate position of the Earth's South.that was done by dropping a line from the foot of the stem of the Cross vertically to the Earth's horizon.
To the West of the Southern Cross is another Cross called Vela which if mistaken for the former and the same principle applied would give more inexperienced navigators a false position for South,hence the alternate name of the Southern Cross being the True Cross and Vela the False Cross,one giving the true position of South and the other the false position.

I believe that Nolan's Cross as it stands represents Vela giving a false location and the very well hidden Cross constructed on the N-S line through the Welling Triangle and MP being the Southern Cross giving the true location,namely G.

I know it is the Southern Cross as it's Cross arm is not at right angles to the stem as is Nolan's cross but at a different angle approximately as you see it in the night sky but at an angle which is significant to Francis Bacon and the positioning of location G along with the Welling Triangle.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:25 am

LOCATION G

At the foot of the True Cross at 724ft from it's centre on the N-S line running through the MP is the Welling Triangle with an area of 43sq.ft and three 60d angles.43 x 666 = 28638 the closest he could get to the bearing he calculated from Old Gorhambury house to Oak Island of 286d 37m.The angles in the triangle to the left of the N-S line are 23d at the apex and 60d at the bottom left corner then 97d.each reduced to their single digit are 23-5..60-6..97-16 giving the figure 5616,the bearing he calculated of 56d 16m from Oak Island to OGhouse.

The designer has used both in orde to plot the location for G from the Welling Triangle at 286d 37m @ 3376ft.

56d 16m is 3376m (Francis 67 Bacon 33) and he used that as a distance as that is all that the length of OI would allow and if you plot that on google earth you will see that it is the mean bearing through the centre of the island.

Therein is the position for G the true location and when aligned with the centre of the True Cross one of the designers best encryptions occurs.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:27 am

Of all the encryptions I have found within this geometry this one is the one that dispelled any nagging doubts I may have had regarding whether I was right or not about all this.
The arm of the True Cross (Crux) is as mentioned previously at an angle to the stem other than 90d but the length remains the same at 720ft as Nolan's Cross(Vela),the angle being 94d 16m 26s East of True North.
The distance from that Cross centre to the MP is 430ft.

Combining the two as one figure of 720430 but instead of reading as 720ft430ft read as 72d 04m 30s.

........94d 16m 26s - 72d 04m 30s = 22m 11s 56m

Francis Bacon died on the 9th April (4th month) 1626...94 16 26
He was born on the 22nd January (1st month) 1561........22 11 561 (In gematria plus or minus 1 is allowed on the original figure)
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /home/oakislan/public_html/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103