15 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Fanciful but completely useless as a reference,
This review is from: The Lost Treasure of the Knights Templar: Solving the Oak Island Mystery (Paperback)
As with all writers regarding Oak Island, Sora falls into the trap of believing in what is actually a folktale based on zero hard evidence. All the early stories about oak platforms, inscribed stone, and flooding are based solely on a newspaper article published 70 years after the alleged 1795 "discovery" of the Pit, and a huge amount of folklore has been added by hack writers and storytellers ever since. Had Sora actually consulted the original news articles this would have become apparent to him.
Additionally, the idea that the Templars could have created the Pit in the 1600s totally ignores the legend as usually told, i.e. that Dan McGinnis found "new growth springing up" around the depression he is said to have encountered. Had the Templars or anyone else dug the Pit prior to 1750 or so, the entire area would have been heavily wooded and the "new growth" would not have been apparent. Indeed the oak tree that allegedly started the whole mess would likely have been dead and gone!
It's also interesting that Sora, like Fanthorpe and legions of other writers, try to tie Oak Island to a plethora of other allegedly mysterious people or events. I have heard of people associating the island with Incas, Egyptians, Templars, the Shroud of Turin, Francis Bacon's "lost manuscripts," the original works of Shakespeare, to name a few. None of these writers have ever shown a shred of documentary evidence, instead relying on interpreted paintings, poems, or their own fertile imagination.
In short: don't bother reading this book except as light entertainment.