I can't believe how low the views are on this series considering there is a major TV show and a lot of interest around the subject. This is the only decent debunking I can find on youtube. I was shocked when I tried to find the absolutely non existent primary sources about the oak island mystery, and kind of angry that the show has never mentioned the possibility of a salt works or any of the rational explanations. I too just assumed that with so much hype there must be a wealth of evidence and did not question it. It just shows that common sense and truth does not attract viewers like a magical mystery.
This is a great debunking of Oak Island. I watched the TV Show and they did find a few interesting things, but none of them proved there was ever a treasure there.
i still remember watching the show as a teen with my very enthusiastic dad and saying ‚why don‘t they just start digging where they think the treasure is, if nothing happens at least they‘ll find the flood tunnels‘. when he got mad at me, i knew something was off with that show. the second giveaway was the completely unproven ‚legends‘ in every episode at convenient places, and the third the fact that the show makes a lot of money with tourism and SAID SO.
Sean, I was fascinated as a kid by the story and believed it. now as an adult I pretty much agree with everything you covered in your 4 videos. For a long time I believed flooding of the shafts was a natural occurrence as it is an island. Your explanation as a salting operation also makes a lot of sense. Also find it nearly impossible to believe that over 200 years of technology and millions and millions of dollars could be outsmarted by 18th century engineers, no matter how smart. it also seems hard to believe that somebody would spend that much time and effort burying something so deep when you could easily spend a lot less time and effort doing a better job to conceal it to make it look like no one was ever there at a much shallower buring depth if treasure was buried there. If I had treasure I wanted to bury. I would bury it on a nearby Island at a much more shallow depth of five or six feet and cover it to make like look like it was never Disturbed. Then on another Island I would clear a lot of trees dig a big hole as deep as I could fill it back in and leave all kinds of evidence so anyone looking for it would be looking in the wrong spot on the wrong Island. I also doubt the existence of engraving on the stone at 90 feet. The only thing I'm still curious about is why someone would dig down 90 feet and place an Oak platform every 10ft along the way. I believe in the original dig that it's an Undisputed fact platforms were encountered every 10 ft. Why would a a salting operation do that? why would someone burying a treasure do that (not that I believe there's treasure buried there)? Why would anyone do that? Any thoughts on that? I didn't see it addressed in any of your videos.
John, thanks for the great question. Actually the "oak platforms" are not an undisputed fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented in the historical record. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can (and have been observed to) swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it came from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. I probably should have addressed this in the videos!
Your presentation is well done. The best well documented work on Oak Island is THE OAK ISLAND MYSTERY SOLVED: THE FINAL CHAPTER by Joy Steele and Gordon Fader in which she argues the structure found was a tar kiln operated by the South Sea Company between 1720 and 1721. Although she doesn’t mention it because the book came out before this, the recent unearthing of cobblestone roads I believe fits into this operation. Eastern White Pine was likely floated in to the island for masts and spars on ships, as well as, other trees for naval store production and oak. The logs were drug up the cobblestone road to the woodyard by oxen, when the cargo ships came, the timber to go to the British shipyards was drug to the ships. The cobblestones were needed to keep the timber drag paths from turning into muddy trenches. The wood and naval stores were needed for the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine. No wood supply and naval stores - no British Empire Much of the land in Britain had been consumed by agriculture and the remaining forest lands had been heavily logged. North America was virgin forests. The cargo costs from North America as opposed to the Baltics and Russia was more, but it could be just taken and supply couldn’t be cut off by war. When one is logging 200 plus year old trees from virgin forests and make things out of them, guess what the Carbon 14 tests indicate? There was a difference of 73 years between when the time the South Sea Company ended its operations and the structure was discovered. Since wood in such a structure would have decayed by then, it is likely the tar kiln cavity was repurposed as a hidden warehouse for non-taxed rum. The rum shipment packing consisting of cocunut fibers likely was buried in trash trenches to hide the illegal activity and later interpreted as flood tunnels. The South Sea Company bubble scam, a probable tax evasion scheme and a treasure hunting racket. Such a little island involved big schemes.
@@SeanMunger Before reading that book I, had a theory that it was for rum smuggling and still do believe that smuggling may have operated out of that place and the convenient structure was repurposed. I had a teenager act in a play which I wrote describing what may have happened linked below. There is the further twist that the treasure hunt itself could have functioned as a cover for a rum smuggling operation which I explain in the play. Here is the play although he went off script at a few places: th-cam.com/video/-lJABSKT5ok/w-d-xo.html I'll have to send you the script. You might even wish to critique its proposition. The question in my mind is what part did Oak Island (which might be the reason for its name) have in any oak shipments to Britain. There was essentially a "domestic oak monopoly" in Britain for the Royal Navy, but there may have been shipments for Merchant Marine construction and repair.
My partner and I watched a few episodes of that absurd show for the laughs about six months ago, but it was too stupid even for that. I straight up yelled "Oh come on!" at one point when they were flying over a particular spot and tried to make out some random arrangement of rocks was an arrow pointing to some kind of supposed anomaly they found. It's very rare for me to do something like that. That guy with the idea about the treasure being the Shakespeare originals was on there too. Such a stupid idea. But what's even more stupid is it's STILL GOING. Ten seasons. It's like they are determined to out stupid Ancient Aliens.
Fast forward 5 yrs... Personally I LOVE watching the History channel show...not because of the finding/not finding of treasure but , for me, the discovery of adjacent history and sparking the imagination.. Hoax, no hoax ..scam , no scam...its interesting 😊
Love your take on Oak Island! I know you said you have zero interest in watching the show, but watching you react to an episode would be fantastic! 😂. Great channel by the way! Subscribed!
Enjoyed this series. A couple of things I disagree with you on (though I agree with your overall conclusions) - first, the statement that if it was real, the people who buried it would have come back for it. This is, supposedly, pirate treasure. Pirates are not renowned for long and peaceful lives, they could have met with a brutal end shortly after they left’s. And likewise, I would not expect pirates to keep records of the construction and associated payroll, and if they were trying to keep it a secret they certainly wouldn’t hire locals. However, the idea of a bunch of pirates, hard pressed enough that they want to ditch their treasure temporarily to avoid having it fall into other hands, taking weeks or months to construct this elaborate system is patently absurd. Thank you for your time researching and producing this, it was very enjoyable. Edited to add: Shakespeare’s plays? REALLY?!? “I have these priceless manuscripts, I think I’ll hide them in this pit of muddy water.” Who TF comes up with this crap?
With the theatrics on tv and media sources, I'm more inclined to believe that the viewers have been duped using planted little relics throughout the show to keep the fantasy rolling. How many antique coins, buttons, and even rusty iron have been found all over the world and how hard would it be to "seed" the island with it prior to broadcasting an episode? With the use of heavy machinery back years ago and the depth they went to chasing these false dreams, something more substantial would have been found long long ago. Just as the splinter programs coming out now, it's all fluff and make believe. Hidden treasure might be found under the sands of Egypt yet, but I seriously doubt you'll find much anywhere else that hasn't already been dug up. The odds would be better using a deep sea exploration vessel and finding sunken treasure on the ocean floor!
I actually don't think they are planting relics, because the relics they actually do find have nothing to do with the treasure but with history of the Island. Like the ship plank in the swamp and the nails or the British coins etc or the pieces of eight. But they are taking the relics they find and ascribing them to the Oak Island mystery when it is just simply history. That is what I find infuriating. There is a lot of history on the Island worth researching, but it most likely have nothing to do with treasure. The most comical find was the 18th Century Sword that was a replica of a Roman sword and it even had a seam and an expert had to set them straight. Or how they tried to twist the Portuguese cross and tobacco leaves that was to symbolize trade with the natives to be a Templar Cross.
My first clue was that no one would leave a depression or tackle hanging from a tree for hecks sake. Especially if it was a huge fortune or some kind of magic object.
I'll admit I watch the show off and on for it's entirety so far. But I'm a skeptic, as far as is there treasure there. Growing up in Virginia, I remember the fabled Beale treasure and the ciphers and all of the years and theories behind it, only to later find that it was a hoax and the "ciphers" were a way to make money, no different for the History channel to have a treasure show for viewing entertainment. I feel that the Oak Island team is delusional in the idea of fortune being there and the chance for discovery, no different then the millions of people playing their "lucky," numbers for lotto.
It's a tourist trap now. You're absolutely right. I too have watched the show. You can clearly tell that there are planted items. Not to mention that the Masonic publicity is rampant throughout.
I never have bought into the existence of flood tunnels-- the construction of which would have been virtually impossible that far back. The main point of the story that made me feel something could be there was the oak platforms every 10 feet to what was it, somewhere over 100 feet ? Why any one would bury something that damn deep is screwy for sure--do you doubt the existence of these platforms?
I do doubt their existence, and here's why. The "oak platforms" are not a documented fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented at all in the historical record, and physical remains of the "platforms" have never been found. It's simply part of the origin story, just like the initial discovery by kids, which we know is false. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field (and an oak tree they were near to) is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it must have come from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. So, no evidence for the existence of "platforms."
Thank you for debunking this and the Marie Celeste. I read about both in the book Mysteries, Monsters and Untold Secrets and wasnt sure about either of those.
Well Sean we are both of the same thought as to treasure on Oak Island. I do think that Oak Island may have been a very temporary storage site for loot but as you have stated, and I believe. Who leaves behind treasure?? No one. But if by chance something of value was left I believe it was probably found in the 1800s, and was cashed in. I do believe the Knights came to North America, but they were not stupid enough to bury their secrets if in fact they ever really had any.
I found the treasure in 1995, I hid some of it in an abandoned mine in the Superstition mountains so that certain magical objects wouldn't fall into the wrong hands. I melted the gold into blobs and then had them professionally made into marked kilo and ounce ingots that could easily be converted into cashhhhh.
wash rinse repeat. Season 10 on now. On the verge, they are very close... to what? They still don't know what they're looking for or where it is, leaving us to conclude it isn't. It doesn't exist.
I have watched all four videos and I have been given much good ideas that support the proposition that there is no treasure on Oak Island, nor ever was. But I do not know how one can make that assertion without documented proof that displays in great detail who lived there, who visited, and why. It is perfectly plausible that at one time, someone buried a fair treasure there and then retrieved it. I agree that the "money pit" is entirely implausible for the reasons given. Far too technical and too unnecessary. It presumes that if some person or organization wished to bury a grand treasure, they could find no suitable place in all of England, Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia, or the European continent. Of course there are many sites there that are more easily accessible, secretive, and subject to observation for security purposes. I am not surprised that people would consider Oak Island a candidate for buried treasure, but I confess to a small level of surprise when the current "Curse of Oak Island" excavations revealed a number of artifacts that predate the 1795 story. These "finds" seem to indicate that people have visited this bizarre island literally centuries before Columbus, or possibly even Leif Erickson, who died circa 1020AD! How is it possible that so many people visited this locale so long ago when to our traditional historical data - no one even knew of the existence of this entire hemisphere! Of all the major land masses, why should Oak island command such interest? I believe it is entirely possible that there may be buried treasure there, though not in any so-called money-pit. Why would someone bury treasure there and not return? There is no honor among thieves. It is entirely plausible that any treasure, meaning stolen goods, became a victim of happenstance as the thieves fought, or possibly killed each other off - or were apprehended. It is quite plausible, as the story goes, that one Capt. Kidd buried treasure there, was apprehended, and decided he would rather go to his grave than expose the location of his hard fought treasure to people he felt had no right to it. (Any pirate captain, crew, or privateer can be inserted for "Capt. Kidd." The secretors of any such treasure do not have to be as well-known or glamourous as Capt. William Kidd.) There are many logical reasons why they could not return to retrieve their booty. So it is not credible to say there is no treasure, nor ever was. In fact, the entire Oak Island "legend" itself makes it plausible - if there is treasure buried in a more conventional manner. By that I mean, the hoax of the "money pit" would perpetually keep would-be treasure hunters looking in the wrong place. This would preserve the safety and the anonymity of the goods that are secreted somewhere else on the island. I believe that if there is treasure to be found, I know the most likely place it might be. I intend to wait for the "Curse of Oak Island" show and efforts by the Lagina brothers to come to a fruitless end. Then, I will propose where to look.
I see two logical flaws in your analysis. The first is that you elevate possibility to the same level as plausibility. Whether or not it is *possible* that Captain Kidd or someone else buried treasure here and then was somehow, by some bizarre and convoluted chain of events, prevented from returning for it, is beside the point. The question is not whether such a thing *could* have happened, but whether the evidence indicates that it *did* happen in this particular case. This conflation of "could happen" with "did happen" is the same faulty reasoning used, among others, by conspiracy theorists. The second logical flaw is that you seem to presume that the "Curse of Oak Island" TV show is a reliable source that has anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject. Personally I remain unconvinced of this, because no one has ever explained to me why the TV show's assertions should be given any weight at all. This show appears on the same network that told us "ancient aliens" were a thing. To any legitimate historian, that's an insurmountable credibility problem. If any of the show's assertions do prove to be real, they will work their way into legitimate scholarship. If then, and only then, do they deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, the "Curse of Oak Island" might as well be a Saturday morning cartoon. No real historians credit it; it makes no genuine contribution to the body of scholarship, such as it is, about Oak Island. It's a game show. Its viewers are unwilling contestants in a contest based entirely on deception. I can't fathom why most people don't understand this.
My guess is that one of her sources is the original 1895 "History of the County of Lunenburg" by DesBrisay which also discusses the folklore background. I think that's available at archive.org.
I think the treasure is a scam. What is probably there is old scandanavian settlement (from the Vinland expedition in different parts of Nova Scotia) possibly archeological evidence of the Mi'kmaq tribe and their history.
Poor Marty. When talk of giving up a search starts he gets a very defiant look and gets rather pissed off He probably will never give up. He has gold fever really bad.
Hello, I like your channel, specially content that debunks psudoscience and conspiracy theories. However, have you seen a norwegian documentary about Shakespeares hidden codes? With Petter Amundsen. Norwegian title: "Shakespeares skjulte sannhet"
I realize that our host is not an engineer, but are there any estimates of how many men would be required to create this Money Pit in a reasonable amount of time? This work would have to be done with shovels, and only so many men could fit into the work-area at the same time.
I agree that there is basically zero chance that any treasure is buried on Oak Island. However, with regards to this portion of the series, wouldn't the Assumption be that whoever constructed the booby traps was either caught and hanged for piracy, or possibly died at Sea somehow?
Sean rather confusingly talks of 'soils' in one of the series. Soil irefers only to the upper layer, 1m or so of the earth. He means rock strata or geology. Oak Island is I think part of the Nova Scotia belt of karst limestone which is riddled with natural solution caverns and pipes capable of conducting sea water from the karst lmst sea bed to the interior. It also produces natural sink holes in which rock and vegetation collapse into the hollow ground producing shaft-like pits, often with tree branches etc lodged in them.
Noticed you didnt mention Samuel Ball's fortune or all the journal entries of FDRs hunts. You also didnt get into robert restall's research. Brought up some good points but left key facts out. The men searching in the 19th century were treasure hunters not archealogists.. They wouldn't have kept detailed notes on much of anything.
Samuel Ball's "fortune" is a tall tale with no documentary support; not even worth mentioning. Restall turned up nothing of value. If you're interested in the FDR hunt, I suggest you read the account of the chief engineer on that expedition, H.L. Bowdoin, whose experience on the dig convinced him there was no treasure there and never was; he wrote an article about it Collier's magazine, Sept. 1911, digitized here: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016754973 (story begins on page 71). And the 19th century treasure hunters did keep detailed notes. In fact here is a transcription of the notes of the 1862/63 expedition where you can see how detailed they got: www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/DavidSmith_Transcript.shtml
@@SeanMunger thanks for the info been reading bout the money pit for 20 yrs. Even though i might disagree with a few of your points. You have put together a far more realistic thought on the story than most. Look forward to watching your thoughts on other things.
These two brothers have spent 10s of millions of dollars searching. I m wondering why they would spent that type of money if nothing there? I just wonder why guys that are already millionaires would invest in a project like this. Having said this I also agree with your conclusion.
The reason they would invest in this project is because it's profitable. My understanding is that the Lagina brothers own a heavy construction business and they lease the equipment to the show, paid for by History Channel. Thus, they actually have an incentive *not* to find anything--actually finding a treasure, which they clearly know does not exist, would mean the end of the expedition. The longer they keep digging without finding anything, and the longer the show stays on the air, the more money they make. It's a scam from start to finish.
What is the pirate gets captured or killed while his treasure is hidden? Most likely it would have been found already. But a chance. Its happened before, even recently in Caribbean. Pirates had engineers. They were just like gangsters. They needed people for different jobs, Atleast the successful ones who could pay people. Or prisoners.
Highly unlikely, as pirates could not command the manpower or resources needed to build the kind of infrastructure that believers in "treasure" insist was constructed there. In any event there's no historical evidence to support this theory.
Sean Munger where what has occurred? You think pirates doing illegal activities kept records of such? Paying under the table. Just as criminals do currently.
A number of historians such as Angus Konstam, Frank Sherry etc. have exhaustively researched the history of piracy and they have not found any evidence to substantiate the "tropes" we see in pirate stories (like large-scale buried treasure operations). Piracy never worked that way in real life. If anything of any substance was ever buried on this island, pirates are among the least likely candidates to have done it. The historical record just doesn't support the inferences you're making.
What about the dye Dan Blankenship put through the 'booby traps'? also, the Non-native Oak tree planting is indicative of a long-term retrieval plan. Supports the "Heirloom" treasure hypothesis'
The dye gag, which was first done in 1899, proves that the island is cris-crossed by natural subterranean channels, not flood tunnels. That was also the result of the first geological survey of the island, conducted in 1867, which reached the conclusion that there was no infrastructure there and never had been. I'm not sure how the planting of certain trees or an "Heirloom" hypothesis can overcome the total lack of physical or documentary evidence that there was something buried there.
There is an old story that pirates buried treasure along with a cask of fine brandy. If the treasure was found and looted by others and the finders drank the Brandy the would die because the Brandy was poisoned. Pirates revenge!
Hi Sean, thank you for the video , I would like to add something....what happens if what is buried is DANGEROUS? like the ark no one can stand before it, so what if it was uranium? or another substance like it?
Watched the Shakespeare Conspiracy that ties into Oak island very entertaining but it is only a documentary so the evidence presented is what they want you to see with enough ambiguity to tease your interest worth a look if only for the entertainment value.
could I and some friends with wood shovels dig down 90 feet in a small circle with out it collapsing . I don't think it could be done. season time say 4 month. all eating and diging every day and paleing up dirt with a 90 ft rope and pale. and building a ladder 90 ft also for what if I had treasure I would keep it on me and spend it .
The 'History' Channel show was an amazing example of spinning out a thin yarn - so much faked excitement over 19C agricultural iron has never been seen before.. II was going to say an example of how a fool and his money are easily parted, but I imagine the two brothers and their associates pocket some cash from the producers. The so-called experts must have their fingers crossed behind their backs at every word they say, but even archaeologists and soil scientists have to pay for holidays and new cars. Hope it was worth it.
Also wood, nails, pick heads and buttons. things that show human activity not treasure. people have found more walking the beach with a metal detector 30min from my house.
nobody has found medieval jewelry...or a parchment. Nothing has ever been recovered via proper methods that can explain the context. Early finds are myths,modern finds are deliberate plants
Especially with today’s technology...Look, they find aircraft disaster ‘black box’ pingers at over 16,000 ft ocean depths...so there’s absolutely nothing there...
Good logic overall, but there's plenty of ancient architecture and massive construction undertakings that cannot be explained. I watch the show since last season. Unless all their finds on the island are fabrications, then I believe something took place a long time ago. Whether that means treasure or not, no one knows for sure.
@@SeanMunger Bringing up another show doesn't prove you are right in any way. Plus, I've watched that show. There are a lot of things that cannot be explained on there as well. Again with regard to ancient structures. You can't say that aliens weren't here at some point.
There is only one way,if the story is true,that the original people would recover the "treasure",that is by tunnelling upward,at a shallow angle from the bottom of the shaft to a point close to the surface, where a space would be opened out to receive the chests. An easy task for men who could tunnel 500 feet to the ocean for the flood tunnels. The officer in charge would have the compass or other measuring equipment, and the men doing the digging would have no idea of where the tunnel would end up close to the surface. At say an angle of 25 degrees, and a depth of say 90 feet, the radius from the surface would be several hundred feet, at any point of the compass,but recovery would be very easy by just digging a small slit trench, hundreds of feet from the money pit.I would stake my reputation as a seagoing chief engineer of 25 years on this, also,why does" no one ever calculate the mass and weight of "2 million pounds"of gold [coins] an average size chest full of gold coins would weigh app.4 tons, and I calculate you would need at least 14 such chests to fit in 2 million coins,no easy task to lift any of these with a tree branch and rope block and tackle!! so much for the "two chests filled with loose metal" Just do the maths, everything can be calculated with basic engineering knowledge.Dale Collins.Australia.
You say impossible for there to be a treasure or this to be built? Do you know how much the geological Terrain can change in just a hundred years? The only point I'm trying to make is it can be possible for the terrain to change even if they left a big hole I think it was there and has been extracted, because how can there be large sinkholes large enough to swallow oak trees, as you talked about in your video and then they get filled back in? just my opinion of how the terrain can change... how can the pyramids be made so exact so large back then when we could hardly do it to that preciseness today? I'm not discrediting your information I am just saying everyone has their own opinion. Because you can't say the pyramids aren't real they are really there and they're built that preciseness for nothing but a burial tomb for some of the wealthiest pharaohs. I'm just saying you have to open up because everyone does have their opinion I totally see your side of things but you need to look at both sides
I think we have to look at the evidence (or lack thereof) in its totality. My problem with applying a "both sides" lens to this legend is that it presumes the "sides" are roughly equivalent. They aren't. There is no evidence, literally none, that anything was ever buried there. The other "side" is pure conjecture. I don't really think there's an equivalence.
@@SeanMunger Evil Apostate! You have committed the gravest of heresies! How dare you dispute the Indisputable Article of Faith of "There are two sides, so the Truth must be between the two." What's next, some elitist claim that fact-based logic is superior to conjecture based on 15 seconds of wishful thinking? Be assured that freethinkers of your ilk will be stamped out soon enough!!! (Carry on the fight, brother!)
I agreed with you throughout your video regarding the treasure on Oak Island. However, for me, you lost your credibility as a historian when you said the theory that Sir Francis Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare's portfolio was 'itself is a ludicrous theory'! To say it is 'ludicrous' theory seem rather contemptuous and shows a woeful information deficit as well as an erroneous understanding of the debate. There is such an overwhelming arguement that Bacon wrote Shakespeare; that some of the world's greatest Shakespearean scholars and experts (both past and present) have built their careers on it e.g. Contemporary academics such as Professor William Leahy (Vice Chancellor of Brunel University), Sir Mark Rylance former CEO of Shakespeare 's Globe Theatre in London have convincly argued the case. The list of scholars over the centuries is endless and even "In 1597, when only two poems had been published under the name William Shake-Speare, and no plays at all, it was unambiguously hinted by the poets Hall and Marston that the author was not Shakespeare, the actor, but the lawyer Francis Bacon. Mark Twain also backed the Baconian theory. It is an ongoing debate that has heated up even more since Dr Ros Barber of Kings College London published her authoritative work. For a historian to cry 'ludicrous' and urging condemnation without investigation is the very height of ignorance and a poor attribute to possess when investigating the past.....and I am not even a Baconian!
Curious how the only people who think I'm a bad historian are people who believe in bad history (meaning, pseudohistory). It *is* a ludicrous theory; I suggest checking out the RationalWiki article on "Shakespeare authorship controversy" that does a good job of explaining why it's nuts.
@@SeanMunger Oh well that's it, case closed...a real life bone fide historian is referring me to a Rationalwiki article...I had better resign my post at a Russel Group University or rename the faculty to 'pseudohistory'. You have proved yourself to be ego driven when someone questions your methods or accuracy you launch in to ad hominem mode. Out of interest did you actually do any academic research? Did you follow up on what real academics have to say on the matter? I assume not. Intellectually dishonesty is blinding. It is also embarrassing that you actually quoted Rationalwiki...its like responding to Shakespeare with a quote from the Hungry Caterpillar...next you'll be quoting snopes.
@@SeanMunger Wow. Just for fun you defend Shakespeare from the Bacon/Marlowe/Jonson/de Vere/"anyone except the man who was Shakespeare" crowd. If I weren't a married man, I think I'd be in love. Again, carry on, brother! Rage against the dying of the light!
I have to say that after watching all 4 episodes of your 'Lee Harvey Oswald did it Alone' videos and all 4 of this one, I'm disappointed with your approach on this one. In the Lee Harvey Oswald series, you used strong evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone. In this one, your approach seems to be that you believe it is a not true, but present absolutely zero evidence to back up that hypothesis. In fact you take an opposite approach, saying that in the absence of evidence, it cannot be true. That's hardly either scientific or logical. You even put forward a theory that could support the fact that treasure could actually still be there, when you rightly indicate that if something prevented whoever put it there from returning, the existing conditions could reflect that. I'm not personally convinced that there is treasure there, but there is no way I would ever make a statement with zero evidence that 1. There is no treasure there, and 2. That there was never treasure there. How can you honestly say that with no evidence. Suppose there was not definitive evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Would you or a jury convict him based on no evidence? I also realize that this video is pretty old, and there have been significant findings on Oak Island in the last 4 years, and the team working there is pretty careful about using proper scientific methods, and even they admit there may not be treasure there, but there is some reason why there is so much interesting history and significant finds there. Hoping that the rest of your videos are better than this series.
If there's no evidence for the flood tunnels, it's just a legend. And the legend does not make the possibility of pirate treasure or anything else valuable being there any more likely *in the least* versus some other random place.
I can't believe how low the views are on this series considering there is a major TV show and a lot of interest around the subject. This is the only decent debunking I can find on youtube. I was shocked when I tried to find the absolutely non existent primary sources about the oak island mystery, and kind of angry that the show has never mentioned the possibility of a salt works or any of the rational explanations. I too just assumed that with so much hype there must be a wealth of evidence and did not question it. It just shows that common sense and truth does not attract viewers like a magical mystery.
Good videos! You just saved me from enduring 6 seasons of the Oak Island mockumentary! Thanks.
This is a great debunking of Oak Island. I watched the TV Show and they did find a few interesting things, but none of them proved there was ever a treasure there.
i still remember watching the show as a teen with my very enthusiastic dad and saying ‚why don‘t they just start digging where they think the treasure is, if nothing happens at least they‘ll find the flood tunnels‘. when he got mad at me, i knew something was off with that show. the second giveaway was the completely unproven ‚legends‘ in every episode at convenient places, and the third the fact that the show makes a lot of money with tourism and SAID SO.
Sean, I was fascinated as a kid by the story and believed it.
now as an adult I pretty much agree with everything you covered in your 4 videos. For a long time I believed flooding of the shafts was a natural occurrence as it is an island.
Your explanation as a salting operation also makes a lot of sense. Also find it nearly impossible to believe that over 200 years of technology and millions and millions of dollars could be outsmarted by 18th century engineers, no matter how smart.
it also seems hard to believe that somebody would spend that much time and effort burying something so deep when you could easily spend a lot less time and effort doing a better job to conceal it to make it look like no one was ever there at a much shallower buring depth if treasure was buried there.
If I had treasure I wanted to bury. I would bury it on a nearby Island at a much more shallow depth of five or six feet and cover it to make like look like it was never Disturbed. Then on another Island I would clear a lot of trees dig a big hole as deep as I could fill it back in and leave all kinds of evidence so anyone looking for it would be looking in the wrong spot on the wrong Island.
I also doubt the existence of engraving on the stone at 90 feet.
The only thing I'm still curious about is why someone would dig down 90 feet and place an Oak platform every 10ft along the way. I believe in the original dig that it's an Undisputed fact platforms were encountered every 10 ft.
Why would a a salting operation do that? why would someone burying a treasure do that (not that I believe there's treasure buried there)? Why would anyone do that? Any thoughts on that? I didn't see it addressed in any of your videos.
John, thanks for the great question. Actually the "oak platforms" are not an undisputed fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented in the historical record. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can (and have been observed to) swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it came from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. I probably should have addressed this in the videos!
Your presentation is well done.
The best well documented work on Oak Island is THE OAK ISLAND MYSTERY SOLVED: THE FINAL CHAPTER by Joy Steele and Gordon Fader in which she argues the structure found was a tar kiln operated by the South Sea Company between 1720 and 1721.
Although she doesn’t mention it because the book came out before this, the recent unearthing of cobblestone roads I believe fits into this operation. Eastern White Pine was likely floated in to the island for masts and spars on ships, as well as, other trees for naval store production and oak. The logs were drug up the cobblestone road to the woodyard by oxen, when the cargo ships came, the timber to go to the British shipyards was drug to the ships. The cobblestones were needed to keep the timber drag paths from turning into muddy trenches. The wood and naval stores were needed for the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine. No wood supply and naval stores - no British Empire Much of the land in Britain had been consumed by agriculture and the remaining forest lands had been heavily logged. North America was virgin forests. The cargo costs from North America as opposed to the Baltics and Russia was more, but it could be just taken and supply couldn’t be cut off by war.
When one is logging 200 plus year old trees from virgin forests and make things out of them, guess what the Carbon 14 tests indicate?
There was a difference of 73 years between when the time the South Sea Company ended its operations and the structure was discovered. Since wood in such a structure would have decayed by then, it is likely the tar kiln cavity was repurposed as a hidden warehouse for non-taxed rum. The rum shipment packing consisting of cocunut fibers likely was buried in trash trenches to hide the illegal activity and later interpreted as flood tunnels.
The South Sea Company bubble scam, a probable tax evasion scheme and a treasure hunting racket. Such a little island involved big schemes.
This makes a lot of sense. I need to get that book!
@@SeanMunger Before reading that book I, had a theory that it was for rum smuggling and still do believe that smuggling may have operated out of that place and the convenient structure was repurposed. I had a teenager act in a play which I wrote describing what may have happened linked below. There is the further twist that the treasure hunt itself could have functioned as a cover for a rum smuggling operation which I explain in the play. Here is the play although he went off script at a few places: th-cam.com/video/-lJABSKT5ok/w-d-xo.html I'll have to send you the script. You might even wish to critique its proposition. The question in my mind is what part did Oak Island (which might be the reason for its name) have in any oak shipments to Britain. There was essentially a "domestic oak monopoly" in Britain for the Royal Navy, but there may have been shipments for Merchant Marine construction and repair.
A hole is dug, but logs are dragged, not drug.
My partner and I watched a few episodes of that absurd show for the laughs about six months ago, but it was too stupid even for that. I straight up yelled "Oh come on!" at one point when they were flying over a particular spot and tried to make out some random arrangement of rocks was an arrow pointing to some kind of supposed anomaly they found. It's very rare for me to do something like that. That guy with the idea about the treasure being the Shakespeare originals was on there too. Such a stupid idea. But what's even more stupid is it's STILL GOING. Ten seasons. It's like they are determined to out stupid Ancient Aliens.
Fast forward 5 yrs...
Personally I LOVE watching the History channel show...not because of the finding/not finding of treasure but , for me, the discovery of adjacent history and sparking the imagination..
Hoax, no hoax ..scam , no scam...its interesting 😊
Love your take on Oak Island! I know you said you have zero interest in watching the show, but watching you react to an episode would be fantastic! 😂. Great channel by the way! Subscribed!
Enjoyed this series. A couple of things I disagree with you on (though I agree with your overall conclusions) - first, the statement that if it was real, the people who buried it would have come back for it. This is, supposedly, pirate treasure. Pirates are not renowned for long and peaceful lives, they could have met with a brutal end shortly after they left’s. And likewise, I would not expect pirates to keep records of the construction and associated payroll, and if they were trying to keep it a secret they certainly wouldn’t hire locals. However, the idea of a bunch of pirates, hard pressed enough that they want to ditch their treasure temporarily to avoid having it fall into other hands, taking weeks or months to construct this elaborate system is patently absurd. Thank you for your time researching and producing this, it was very enjoyable. Edited to add: Shakespeare’s plays? REALLY?!? “I have these priceless manuscripts, I think I’ll hide them in this pit of muddy water.” Who TF comes up with this crap?
With the theatrics on tv and media sources, I'm more inclined to believe that the viewers have been duped using planted little relics throughout the show to keep the fantasy rolling. How many antique coins, buttons, and even rusty iron have been found all over the world and how hard would it be to "seed" the island with it prior to broadcasting an episode? With the use of heavy machinery back years ago and the depth they went to chasing these false dreams, something more substantial would have been found long long ago. Just as the splinter programs coming out now, it's all fluff and make believe. Hidden treasure might be found under the sands of Egypt yet, but I seriously doubt you'll find much anywhere else that hasn't already been dug up. The odds would be better using a deep sea exploration vessel and finding sunken treasure on the ocean floor!
I actually don't think they are planting relics, because the relics they actually do find have nothing to do with the treasure but with history of the Island. Like the ship plank in the swamp and the nails or the British coins etc or the pieces of eight. But they are taking the relics they find and ascribing them to the Oak Island mystery when it is just simply history. That is what I find infuriating. There is a lot of history on the Island worth researching, but it most likely have nothing to do with treasure. The most comical find was the 18th Century Sword that was a replica of a Roman sword and it even had a seam and an expert had to set them straight. Or how they tried to twist the Portuguese cross and tobacco leaves that was to symbolize trade with the natives to be a Templar Cross.
My first clue was that no one would leave a depression or tackle hanging from a tree for hecks sake. Especially if it was a huge fortune or some kind of magic object.
Turns out that there was treasure there after all. The Lagina brothers are making a killing of the damn place.
Personally, after watching one episode, I knew it was BS. About as stupid as Gold Rush.
Treasure or not.... after watching Oak Island since it began anymore it makes my head actually hurt!!
I'll admit I watch the show off and on for it's entirety so far. But I'm a skeptic, as far as is there treasure there. Growing up in Virginia, I remember the fabled Beale treasure and the ciphers and all of the years and theories behind it, only to later find that it was a hoax and the "ciphers" were a way to make money, no different for the History channel to have a treasure show for viewing entertainment. I feel that the Oak Island team is delusional in the idea of fortune being there and the chance for discovery, no different then the millions of people playing their "lucky," numbers for lotto.
It's a tourist trap now. You're absolutely right. I too have watched the show. You can clearly tell that there are planted items. Not to mention that the Masonic publicity is rampant throughout.
It seems to me, the only treasures found in the tv show have been laying around on the island and beach
You are so fluent! I am really impressed by how few jump cuts there are in your video!
I never have bought into the existence of flood tunnels-- the construction of which would have been virtually impossible that far back.
The main point of the story that made me feel something could be there was the oak platforms every 10 feet to what was it, somewhere
over 100 feet ? Why any one would bury something that damn deep is screwy for sure--do you doubt the existence of these platforms?
I do doubt their existence, and here's why. The "oak platforms" are not a documented fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented at all in the historical record, and physical remains of the "platforms" have never been found. It's simply part of the origin story, just like the initial discovery by kids, which we know is false. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field (and an oak tree they were near to) is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it must have come from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. So, no evidence for the existence of "platforms."
People will ruin themselves trying to find “treasure”, “lost mines” and legendary things to get rich and famous. There’s a sucker born every minute.
Thank you for debunking this and the Marie Celeste. I read about both in the book Mysteries, Monsters and Untold Secrets and wasnt sure about either of those.
Well Sean we are both of the same thought as to treasure on Oak Island. I do think that Oak Island may have been a very temporary storage site for loot but as you have stated, and I believe. Who leaves behind treasure?? No one. But if by chance something of value was left I believe it was probably found in the 1800s, and was cashed in. I do believe the Knights came to North America, but they were not stupid enough to bury their secrets if in fact they ever really had any.
Theres lots of evidence of human activity and that SOMETHING was going on there off and on. no treasure though, as you said it was temporary.
The guy in the thumbnail is a friend of mine XD look for:
" Der hässliche Hans ".
Strange where pictures of people can get to.
I found the treasure in 1995, I hid some of it in an abandoned mine in the Superstition mountains so that certain magical objects wouldn't fall into the wrong hands. I melted the gold into blobs and then had them professionally made into marked kilo and ounce ingots that could easily be converted into cashhhhh.
Legend has it that in the year 2134, this series was fundamental in the changing of the name to HOAX ISLAND! Cardiff Giant anyone?
Season 8 now running. Checking in now and. Allways the same: VERY close finding the treasure now! But no, but in NEXT episode! Yawn...
wash rinse repeat. Season 10 on now. On the verge, they are very close... to what? They still don't know what they're looking for or where it is, leaving us to conclude it isn't. It doesn't exist.
I have watched all four videos and I have been given much good ideas that support the proposition that there is no treasure on Oak Island, nor ever was. But I do not know how one can make that assertion without documented proof that displays in great detail who lived there, who visited, and why. It is perfectly plausible that at one time, someone buried a fair treasure there and then retrieved it. I agree that the "money pit" is entirely implausible for the reasons given. Far too technical and too unnecessary. It presumes that if some person or organization wished to bury a grand treasure, they could find no suitable place in all of England, Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia, or the European continent. Of course there are many sites there that are more easily accessible, secretive, and subject to observation for security purposes.
I am not surprised that people would consider Oak Island a candidate for buried treasure, but I confess to a small level of surprise when the current "Curse of Oak Island" excavations revealed a number of artifacts that predate the 1795 story. These "finds" seem to indicate that people have visited this bizarre island literally centuries before Columbus, or possibly even Leif Erickson, who died circa 1020AD! How is it possible that so many people visited this locale so long ago when to our traditional historical data - no one even knew of the existence of this entire hemisphere! Of all the major land masses, why should Oak island command such interest? I believe it is entirely possible that there may be buried treasure there, though not in any so-called money-pit.
Why would someone bury treasure there and not return? There is no honor among thieves. It is entirely plausible that any treasure, meaning stolen goods, became a victim of happenstance as the thieves fought, or possibly killed each other off - or were apprehended. It is quite plausible, as the story goes, that one Capt. Kidd buried treasure there, was apprehended, and decided he would rather go to his grave than expose the location of his hard fought treasure to people he felt had no right to it. (Any pirate captain, crew, or privateer can be inserted for "Capt. Kidd." The secretors of any such treasure do not have to be as well-known or glamourous as Capt. William Kidd.) There are many logical reasons why they could not return to retrieve their booty. So it is not credible to say there is no treasure, nor ever was.
In fact, the entire Oak Island "legend" itself makes it plausible - if there is treasure buried in a more conventional manner. By that I mean, the hoax of the "money pit" would perpetually keep would-be treasure hunters looking in the wrong place. This would preserve the safety and the anonymity of the goods that are secreted somewhere else on the island. I believe that if there is treasure to be found, I know the most likely place it might be. I intend to wait for the "Curse of Oak Island" show and efforts by the Lagina brothers to come to a fruitless end. Then, I will propose where to look.
I see two logical flaws in your analysis. The first is that you elevate possibility to the same level as plausibility. Whether or not it is *possible* that Captain Kidd or someone else buried treasure here and then was somehow, by some bizarre and convoluted chain of events, prevented from returning for it, is beside the point. The question is not whether such a thing *could* have happened, but whether the evidence indicates that it *did* happen in this particular case. This conflation of "could happen" with "did happen" is the same faulty reasoning used, among others, by conspiracy theorists.
The second logical flaw is that you seem to presume that the "Curse of Oak Island" TV show is a reliable source that has anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject. Personally I remain unconvinced of this, because no one has ever explained to me why the TV show's assertions should be given any weight at all. This show appears on the same network that told us "ancient aliens" were a thing. To any legitimate historian, that's an insurmountable credibility problem. If any of the show's assertions do prove to be real, they will work their way into legitimate scholarship. If then, and only then, do they deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, the "Curse of Oak Island" might as well be a Saturday morning cartoon. No real historians credit it; it makes no genuine contribution to the body of scholarship, such as it is, about Oak Island. It's a game show. Its viewers are unwilling contestants in a contest based entirely on deception. I can't fathom why most people don't understand this.
9:05 - Correct. All one has to do is have a look at Helen Creighton's book about the folklore of Lunenburg county.
My guess is that one of her sources is the original 1895 "History of the County of Lunenburg" by DesBrisay which also discusses the folklore background. I think that's available at archive.org.
I think the treasure is a scam. What is probably there is old scandanavian settlement (from the Vinland expedition in different parts of Nova Scotia) possibly archeological evidence of the Mi'kmaq tribe and their history.
I am watching this more than 5 years later and surprise, surprise, still no treasure found. Plenty of 'top pocket' finds and 'valuable clues' though.
Poor Marty. When talk of giving up a search starts he gets a very defiant look and gets rather pissed off He probably will never give up. He has gold fever really bad.
Rick always seems to be the one who says "I want to stop this. It's not safe" and always when it begins to get interesting.
Interesting watch. Let me ask you this: what Nova Scotia buried treasure mystery do you think is authentic and has yet to be found?
Hello, I like your channel, specially content that debunks psudoscience and conspiracy theories.
However, have you seen a norwegian documentary about Shakespeares hidden codes?
With Petter Amundsen.
Norwegian title:
"Shakespeares skjulte sannhet"
What if the people who buried the treasure were all killed, in a sailing accident, for example?
Unlikely, because there would still be other evidence of a "treasure" having been buried there. There is no such evidence.
I have enjoyed all four of your videos and agree that their has never been a treasure.
I realize that our host is not an engineer, but are there any estimates of how many men would be required to create this Money Pit in a reasonable amount of time?
This work would have to be done with shovels, and only so many men could fit into the work-area at the same time.
I agree that there is basically zero chance that any treasure is buried on Oak Island. However, with regards to this portion of the series, wouldn't the Assumption be that whoever constructed the booby traps was either caught and hanged for piracy, or possibly died at Sea somehow?
Sean rather confusingly talks of 'soils' in one of the series. Soil irefers only to the upper layer, 1m or so of the earth. He means rock strata or geology. Oak Island is I think part of the Nova Scotia belt of karst limestone which is riddled with natural solution caverns and pipes capable of conducting sea water from the karst lmst sea bed to the interior. It also produces natural sink holes in which rock and vegetation collapse into the hollow ground producing shaft-like pits, often with tree branches etc lodged in them.
I like the Foucault's Pendulum reference.
Noticed you didnt mention Samuel Ball's fortune or all the journal entries of FDRs hunts. You also didnt get into robert restall's research. Brought up some good points but left key facts out. The men searching in the 19th century were treasure hunters not archealogists.. They wouldn't have kept detailed notes on much of anything.
Samuel Ball's "fortune" is a tall tale with no documentary support; not even worth mentioning. Restall turned up nothing of value. If you're interested in the FDR hunt, I suggest you read the account of the chief engineer on that expedition, H.L. Bowdoin, whose experience on the dig convinced him there was no treasure there and never was; he wrote an article about it Collier's magazine, Sept. 1911, digitized here: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016754973 (story begins on page 71). And the 19th century treasure hunters did keep detailed notes. In fact here is a transcription of the notes of the 1862/63 expedition where you can see how detailed they got: www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/DavidSmith_Transcript.shtml
@@SeanMunger thanks for the info been reading bout the money pit for 20 yrs. Even though i might disagree with a few of your points. You have put together a far more realistic thought on the story than most. Look forward to watching your thoughts on other things.
Thanks!
These two brothers have spent 10s of millions of dollars searching. I m wondering why they would spent that type of money if nothing there? I just wonder why guys that are already millionaires would invest in a project like this. Having said this I also agree with your conclusion.
The reason they would invest in this project is because it's profitable. My understanding is that the Lagina brothers own a heavy construction business and they lease the equipment to the show, paid for by History Channel. Thus, they actually have an incentive *not* to find anything--actually finding a treasure, which they clearly know does not exist, would mean the end of the expedition. The longer they keep digging without finding anything, and the longer the show stays on the air, the more money they make. It's a scam from start to finish.
@@SeanMunger so after 200 years somebody found a way to make money with the money pit instead of dumping it down there? wow
What is the pirate gets captured or killed while his treasure is hidden? Most likely it would have been found already. But a chance. Its happened before, even recently in Caribbean. Pirates had engineers. They were just like gangsters. They needed people for different jobs, Atleast the successful ones who could pay people. Or prisoners.
Highly unlikely, as pirates could not command the manpower or resources needed to build the kind of infrastructure that believers in "treasure" insist was constructed there. In any event there's no historical evidence to support this theory.
Sean Munger command? Money talks.
Please name a documented historical instance where this has occurred.
Sean Munger where what has occurred? You think pirates doing illegal activities kept records of such? Paying under the table. Just as criminals do currently.
A number of historians such as Angus Konstam, Frank Sherry etc. have exhaustively researched the history of piracy and they have not found any evidence to substantiate the "tropes" we see in pirate stories (like large-scale buried treasure operations). Piracy never worked that way in real life. If anything of any substance was ever buried on this island, pirates are among the least likely candidates to have done it. The historical record just doesn't support the inferences you're making.
There is no way they had the capabilities to do this.
What about the dye Dan Blankenship put through the 'booby traps'?
also, the Non-native Oak tree planting is indicative of a long-term retrieval plan.
Supports the "Heirloom" treasure hypothesis'
The dye gag, which was first done in 1899, proves that the island is cris-crossed by natural subterranean channels, not flood tunnels. That was also the result of the first geological survey of the island, conducted in 1867, which reached the conclusion that there was no infrastructure there and never had been. I'm not sure how the planting of certain trees or an "Heirloom" hypothesis can overcome the total lack of physical or documentary evidence that there was something buried there.
@@SeanMunger The dye gag was repeated. A load of green dye was dumped down shaft X10. It stayed there. No trace of the so-called flood tunnels.
There is an old story that pirates buried treasure along with a cask of fine brandy. If the treasure was found and looted by others and the finders drank the Brandy the would die because the Brandy was poisoned. Pirates revenge!
I would think that if you have a large amount of valuables hidden you would left a few people to guard it.
Hi Sean, thank you for the video , I would like to add something....what happens if what is buried is DANGEROUS? like the ark no one can stand before it, so what if it was uranium? or another substance like it?
There's no evidence that anything was buried there at all, dangerous or not.
@@SeanMunger so the map I found is not real?
Probably not. Watch the other videos in the series to understand how we can be pretty sure that there is nothing there, and the story is a hoax.
@@sir-chris-pbacon2402 you should return it to the gift shop.
Watched the Shakespeare Conspiracy that ties into Oak island very entertaining but it is only a documentary so the evidence presented is what they want you to see with enough ambiguity to tease your interest worth a look if only for the entertainment value.
The scam is hilarious. The idea of three levels of wood flooring is a joke. That is way too much effort to bury something.
Also was there a robbery to coincide with with this cache
The Treasure on Oak Island. A waste of time, money, and sometimes life.
could I and some friends with wood shovels dig down 90 feet in a small circle with out it collapsing . I don't think it could be done. season time say 4 month. all eating and diging every day and paleing up dirt with a 90 ft rope and pale. and building a ladder 90 ft also for what if I had treasure I would keep it on me and spend it .
The 'History' Channel show was an amazing example of spinning out a thin yarn - so much faked excitement over 19C agricultural iron has never been seen before.. II was going to say an example of how a fool and his money are easily parted, but I imagine the two brothers and their associates pocket some cash from the producers. The so-called experts must have their fingers crossed behind their backs at every word they say, but even archaeologists and soil scientists have to pay for holidays and new cars. Hope it was worth it.
That's why they trot out the templars. Because they were all killed. They couldn't come back.
4:22 the only exception are burial sites
What about all the artifacts that have been found. So far they found medieval jewelry and parchment.
Color me "not impressed."
Also wood, nails, pick heads and buttons. things that show human activity not treasure. people have found more walking the beach with a metal detector 30min from my house.
nobody has found medieval jewelry...or a parchment. Nothing has ever been recovered via proper methods that can explain the context. Early finds are myths,modern finds are deliberate plants
My man listens to Blind Guardian. Hell yeah.
Lol...They’re still diggin’ as of 11-15-20...😎
They're still digging in Jan 2023 (at least on TV) and are still on the verge of hitting pay dirt any day now.
Especially with today’s technology...Look, they find aircraft disaster ‘black box’ pingers at over 16,000 ft ocean depths...so there’s absolutely nothing there...
The real treasure is the friends the hunters made along the way. Did you ever think about that?
If by friends you mean "ad revenue," you might be on to something. 😜
@@SeanMunger 😆😆
You’re pronouncing it wrong. It’s The Curse of Joke Island
Duh, pirates had the tech to confound modern tech, stupid at best, at worst just a lie. No debunking needed at all.
Logical.
The Laginas are scammers...
Good logic overall, but there's plenty of ancient architecture and massive construction undertakings that cannot be explained. I watch the show since last season. Unless all their finds on the island are fabrications, then I believe something took place a long time ago. Whether that means treasure or not, no one knows for sure.
This is the same channel that told us "ancient aliens" were a thing, so I don't have a lot of faith in the veracity of any claims made on the show.
@@SeanMunger Bringing up another show doesn't prove you are right in any way. Plus, I've watched that show. There are a lot of things that cannot be explained on there as well. Again with regard to ancient structures. You can't say that aliens weren't here at some point.
Actually, I can say exactly that. In fact I made a video about it! th-cam.com/video/tHhQxMNP7zg/w-d-xo.html
There is only one way,if the story is true,that the original people would recover the "treasure",that is by tunnelling upward,at a shallow angle from the bottom of the shaft to a point close to the surface, where a space would be opened out to receive the chests. An easy task for men who could tunnel 500 feet to the ocean for the flood tunnels. The officer in charge would have the compass or other measuring equipment, and the men doing the digging would have no idea of where the tunnel would end up close to the surface. At say an angle of 25 degrees, and a depth of say 90 feet, the radius from the surface would be several hundred feet, at any point of the compass,but recovery would be very easy by just digging a small slit trench, hundreds of feet from the money pit.I would stake my reputation as a seagoing chief engineer of 25 years on this, also,why does" no one ever calculate the mass and weight of "2 million pounds"of gold [coins] an average size chest full of gold coins would weigh app.4 tons, and I calculate you would need at least 14 such chests to fit in 2 million coins,no easy task to lift any of these with a tree branch and rope block and tackle!! so much for the "two chests filled with loose metal" Just do the maths, everything can be calculated with basic engineering knowledge.Dale Collins.Australia.
dale collins Haha xD
You say impossible for there to be a treasure or this to be built? Do you know how much the geological Terrain can change in just a hundred years? The only point I'm trying to make is it can be possible for the terrain to change even if they left a big hole I think it was there and has been extracted, because how can there be large sinkholes large enough to swallow oak trees, as you talked about in your video and then they get filled back in? just my opinion of how the terrain can change... how can the pyramids be made so exact so large back then when we could hardly do it to that preciseness today? I'm not discrediting your information I am just saying everyone has their own opinion. Because you can't say the pyramids aren't real they are really there and they're built that preciseness for nothing but a burial tomb for some of the wealthiest pharaohs. I'm just saying you have to open up because everyone does have their opinion I totally see your side of things but you need to look at both sides
I think we have to look at the evidence (or lack thereof) in its totality. My problem with applying a "both sides" lens to this legend is that it presumes the "sides" are roughly equivalent. They aren't. There is no evidence, literally none, that anything was ever buried there. The other "side" is pure conjecture. I don't really think there's an equivalence.
Jack Jones We can recreate the pyramids. Probably even better. Question is. Why? And who's going to pay for it?
@@SeanMunger Evil Apostate! You have committed the gravest of heresies! How dare you dispute the Indisputable Article of Faith of "There are two sides, so the Truth must be between the two."
What's next, some elitist claim that fact-based logic is superior to conjecture based on 15 seconds of wishful thinking?
Be assured that freethinkers of your ilk will be stamped out soon enough!!!
(Carry on the fight, brother!)
Maybe the treasure of Oak island was the friends we made along the way! And the millions of dollars people gained from spreading the tale.
This guy just wants the treasure for himself 😂
5 years later and the Pseudo History channel has still found nothing lol
Bravo! 🏴☠️
algorithm
I agreed with you throughout your video regarding the treasure on Oak Island. However, for me, you lost your credibility as a historian when you said the theory that Sir Francis Bacon was the true author of Shakespeare's portfolio was 'itself is a ludicrous theory'!
To say it is 'ludicrous' theory seem rather contemptuous and shows a woeful information deficit as well as an erroneous understanding of the debate. There is such an overwhelming arguement that Bacon wrote Shakespeare; that some of the world's greatest Shakespearean scholars and experts (both past and present) have built their careers on it e.g. Contemporary academics such as Professor William Leahy (Vice Chancellor of Brunel University), Sir Mark Rylance former CEO of Shakespeare 's Globe Theatre in London have convincly argued the case. The list of scholars over the centuries is endless and even "In 1597, when only two poems had been published under the name William Shake-Speare, and no plays at all, it was unambiguously hinted by the poets Hall and Marston that the author was not Shakespeare, the actor, but the lawyer Francis Bacon.
Mark Twain also backed the Baconian theory. It is an ongoing debate that has heated up even more since Dr Ros Barber of Kings College London published her authoritative work. For a historian to cry 'ludicrous' and urging condemnation without investigation is the very height of ignorance and a poor attribute to possess when investigating the past.....and I am not even a Baconian!
Curious how the only people who think I'm a bad historian are people who believe in bad history (meaning, pseudohistory). It *is* a ludicrous theory; I suggest checking out the RationalWiki article on "Shakespeare authorship controversy" that does a good job of explaining why it's nuts.
@@SeanMunger Oh well that's it, case closed...a real life bone fide historian is referring me to a Rationalwiki article...I had better resign my post at a Russel Group University or rename the faculty to 'pseudohistory'. You have proved yourself to be ego driven when someone questions your methods or accuracy you launch in to ad hominem mode. Out of interest did you actually do any academic research? Did you follow up on what real academics have to say on the matter? I assume not. Intellectually dishonesty is blinding. It is also embarrassing that you actually quoted Rationalwiki...its like responding to Shakespeare with a quote from the Hungry Caterpillar...next you'll be quoting snopes.
@@MrGabriel88888888 just saying, that rationalwiki article makes a much more convincing case.
@@SeanMunger Wow. Just for fun you defend Shakespeare from the Bacon/Marlowe/Jonson/de Vere/"anyone except the man who was Shakespeare" crowd.
If I weren't a married man, I think I'd be in love.
Again, carry on, brother! Rage against the dying of the light!
I have to say that after watching all 4 episodes of your 'Lee Harvey Oswald did it Alone' videos and all 4 of this one, I'm disappointed with your approach on this one. In the Lee Harvey Oswald series, you used strong evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone. In this one, your approach seems to be that you believe it is a not true, but present absolutely zero evidence to back up that hypothesis. In fact you take an opposite approach, saying that in the absence of evidence, it cannot be true. That's hardly either scientific or logical. You even put forward a theory that could support the fact that treasure could actually still be there, when you rightly indicate that if something prevented whoever put it there from returning, the existing conditions could reflect that. I'm not personally convinced that there is treasure there, but there is no way I would ever make a statement with zero evidence that 1. There is no treasure there, and 2. That there was never treasure there. How can you honestly say that with no evidence. Suppose there was not definitive evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Would you or a jury convict him based on no evidence? I also realize that this video is pretty old, and there have been significant findings on Oak Island in the last 4 years, and the team working there is pretty careful about using proper scientific methods, and even they admit there may not be treasure there, but there is some reason why there is so much interesting history and significant finds there. Hoping that the rest of your videos are better than this series.
If there's no evidence for the flood tunnels, it's just a legend. And the legend does not make the possibility of pirate treasure or anything else valuable being there any more likely *in the least* versus some other random place.