Enforen
Member
Member # 4773
Member Rated:
posted 03-05-2007 07:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TemplarScribe,
How’s this?
The inscription stone could have been nothing more than a hastily scratched inscription stone. The workman who removed the stone from Smith’s fireplace said the inscription was visible in the 1850s. BTW, a partition wall had to be first removed to gain access to the stone. Then by the 1870s, Creighton's son (who gave a statement to Blair) said he clearly recalls seeing the stone as a boy (1870s) but there were no characters carved or painted on the stone, except for the JM initials. We know from the same statement the stone was very hard.
It sounds to me like Smith was hiding or protecting the stone in his fireplace, but behind a partition, since 1805. The stone was reported to be very hard, thus in only ~20-30 years of exposure and handling, the characters were totally removed.
This 20 to 30 year span of wear and tear on hard stone indicates the characters could not have been deeply cut.
Therefore, it is of my opinion the stone was hastily prepared, and certainly not part of a pre-meditated plan which would have the message to last through the ages.
The stone triangle, is most likely post Pit 14 activity and in all likely hood post 1860s operations. The area exactly at the triangle was the dump ground for Pit 14(?) and perhaps others diggings. Original shoreline and inland for ~100ft between the triangle and swamp was very low with minimal slope. The terrain between the shore and MP was drastically altered through mine tail deposits even prior to the 1931 aerial photo set. It is unlikely for the triangle to have been of original construction as the shoreline area in this location was raised by ~2ft with the mine tails. The 1931 aerial photoset clearly shows the new slope in the area. This slope remained the same until the late 1960s. The triangle was surveyed and photographed, but never having been reported as excavated, thus if the triangle were visible in the 1890s and in the 1950s, on ground ~2ft higher than pre Pit 14 work, it could have not existed in the same ground prior to Pit 14 and thus not part of the original construction.
With that said, and in all fairness, it is possible the loose soil immediate the triangle suffered higher rates of erosion from being immediate the 1890 and onwards shoreline, thus removing the mine tails and once again exposing the stones.
Additionally, you may notice that all stones of interest on the surface of Oak Island are smooth, yet the stones of the triangle are not, and they would be the only stones which are not smooth.
I suggest you source out the Arlik Walton material from the 1960s. Send me an email and I’ll send you part of the work.
Cheers
[ 03-06-2007, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Enforen ]
--------------------
Please visit the Birch Island Illusion at
http://www.birchislandillusion.blogspot.com/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 56 | From: Birch Island | Registered: Jan 2007
