Stone Triangle Research

Researching the Real Stone Triangle

As my book was published I discovered online, two depictions of the real Stone Triangle on the South shore of Oak Island. The Leroy A Crooks film of Oak Island from 1939 and the aerial photograph of the Island in 1931 in the Nova Scotia Archives, a high resolution version being online at Wikimedia Commons. (Links below)

Both of these showed the triangle in its location prior to it being destroyed. For research purposes this was a bonus as both images showed much more detail and placed the Triangle in relation to surrounding features, notably the Money Pit region.

In my book I had relied on geometric information and images that I now know are either not correct or now had stronger clarification and proof. The basic geometry was very similar but there is a lot more information in the real triangle than I could have possibly known about beforehand.

The Stone Triangle is definitely a constructed and designed structure of rocks. Certainly not just a pile of rocks. As I have mentioned in a previous article about the location of the Stone Triangle it is also not a ten foot equilateral triangle, but actually of 14.5 feet dimensions.

It was when I measured the angle of the three key points of the 1931 image that I found that the triangle in this form could not be correct. The distortion present in the aerial image needed to be corrected. I had geometrically looked at the angles and found that a very small change in perspective shifted the depicted triangle into its correct shape. From here the Triangle took on very defined and specific properties that left me with no doubt that this was the correct shape and dimensions.

The Triangle’s correct angles are 55°, 60° and 65°. This arrangement gave the Triangle characteristics that allowed a very simple construction of its geometry. I am sure that the “Designer” had intended a certain level of cryptic hiding of the true layout. Put simply, someone who knows geometry would have understood and been able to interpret the placement of the rocks in order to arrive at the correct solution.

It was only a minor shift in perspective that brought the Triangle to its correct shape. Fortunately the Triangle in the 1931 image is closest to a near vertical position, had it been anywhere else in the photograph then it may not have been possible to interpret it correctly.

The three key rocks stand out because of their unique brightness and similar shape, they also sit flat with little vertical profile as they do not cast long shadows. They are so white that I actually thought that they had been painted! With dimensions of about one foot they are very clear markers.

Stone Triangle Design

I will take you through the geometry design commenting on features as I present each image. The geometry is the focus, not the underlying image. I had tried to correct the image as best as possible but it is still only an image to give visual indications of what is happening geometrically.

The basic layout has the three rocks A,B,C and their related angle. The line BC travels in an East/West direction. A line perpendicular to the base and intersecting Point A divides the base into 5.8 and 8.7 sections with ratios between them of 0.666 and 1.5. The distance from A to P turned out to be interesting to me, 12.43 feet. I had found from the geometry that the Money Pit center was 273.477 feet from the Stone Triangle apex. I divided the value 273.477 by the 12.43 and the result was 22.0013, a very neat 22 times the 12.43 arrives at the Money Pit. Coincidence maybe?

With a base distance of 14.5 feet (BC), the other sides are 13.72 (AB) and 15.17 (AC).

The center of the triangle is easily found as we have three points. Perpendicular lines from the center of each side gives the center. From this a circle is drawn that intersects each point. Immediately you can see that the circle center is offset from the line AP. This distance is 1.45 feet, one tenth of the base distance.

I had questioned myself about how I could tell where the actual center of these rocks were and found a very simple solution, that I believe was designed into this construction.

Extending the line AB, the line passes through to points G and H. In relation to Point C they define 40° angles that intersect Point C. This gives a fix on the center of Point C rock. This in turn gives a fix on both Points B and A. Coupled with Points BC being on an East/West line then Point A is clearly fixed. Because of the relationships of angles and lines then the center points of ABC cannot be anywhere else.

Note also the line AP intersects exactly the 40° line CH on the circle and the same for the line CG. The angle GCH being 100°.

I believe that there was a “first step” in aligning the rocks but I will present that later.

The formation of the equilateral triangle is now possible. The center line of the circle gives Point E, and Points BC define the other vertices of the triangle. If any other initial angles were used then Point E will not sit on the circle. The distance of PQ is 1.45 feet. The other method to define Point E is to use Points B and C to draw a vesica piscis. As illustrated below I have drawn three circles that define the vesica piscis.

Further to this (below), the angle of ADE is revealed as 10° and the angle QEL is 6.6°. In my book I had worked on the ten foot sided model for the triangle that is normally presented everywhere, this angle of 6.59° had links to lunar cycles. None of this has changed as even today a full 24 hour movement of the moon is often quoted as being 13.2°. My thoughts on these matters concerning the Designer using lunar data still stands.

The base of the triangle is easily divided into tenths through the relationship of PQ being 1.45 feet.

Because of the initial triangle angles many geometric constructions of polygons are present. I will illustrate a few but I have no interest in developing Maltese Crosses and a myriad of other shapes that are possible. Interpretation of such things did not seem to provide answers and I was only interested in the triangle and its relationship to the Money Pit location.

Hexagons are just six equilateral triangles, very simple to construct. The geometry so far also gave indications of nine, twelve and eighteen sided polygons.

Centered on Point E, I found that lines NOT passing through Point E gave intersections at 20°, and 40° on the outer circle line, AB and AC in particular. These are just indicators to me that the Stone Triangle was very specifically designed. The initially angles chosen allowed for this design and its qualities.

The starting point for identifying and constructing the Stone Triangle is not a part of the Triangle itself. But rather, the large circular rock at the head of the Stone Triangle. This is a very distinctive rock and I believe I may have found other pictures of it.

In Paul Troutman’s website,, is a photo depicting a section of a rock with curious carving on it. Picture #33 in the B&W gallery.

I looked at this symbol from a geometric perspective and found some correlation. Another image of the same rock surfaced on a Facebook group, but taken from another angle. Piecing these to together gave me a larger portion of the overall rock shape.

I feel that the rock in the photograph may have been the large headstone rock of the Stone Triangle.

The curious shape was able to be aligned to produce a 55° angle and this angle was the same angle produced in the geometry at a darkened portion of the headstone in the 1931 photograph. Purely speculative as I do not know the origin of the stone in the photographs but its shape and position of the symbol do appear to be similar. Producing both the 25° and 30° angles was the major link that I saw.

The position of the carved symbol would align to both Points B and C at the base of the triangle and so form a strong starting point for aligning the geometry to the Stone Triangle rock structure. The headstone would act as a significant visual marker for the overall triangle creation and design. Understanding the geometry present would follow as key points and lines were identified.

I have included below a few more images to clarify the Stone Triangle construction and design. Far more interesting than a simple geometric model seen everywhere.

So where did the “Ten Foot Triangle” come from? I believe it came from the interpretation of the central rock profile that creates the 6.6° line. By not using the larger “triangle area” it produces a ten foot sided equilateral triangle that is commonly depicted. I created a ten foot sided equilateral triangle to illustrate this point.

It was when I settled on the triangle being 14.5 feet in dimension that I found that the lowest point of the 14.5 foot circle, where it intersects the North/South line actually created a near perfect match to the East Drilled Rock (EDR). A line from this point at 45.052° aligned  with the Roper Survey position of the EDR. A distance of 592.55 feet. The West Drilled Rock I still had an alignment difference of 1.03 feet, but the EDR was now only 0.87 feet. To align to the EDR would require a distance of 15.25 feet below the apex point of the equilateral triangle. Closer, very close, but I was still left with the impression that the EDR and WDR had been moved?

One realization I had from this is that my apex position at Point E, (ST in my book) must be the same as the Roper survey as we both aligned perfectly to the 115.5 foot Survey Position. This made me correct my “Ten Foot” triangle diagram to reflect this alignment. The absence of a “rock” at the actual apex of the triangle was not a concern to me at all. Why? Because if you followed the correct geometric construction process then a rock is not needed to identify the position! Also, only Point E satisfies the geometry of being 1118 feet from the middle of Nolan’s Cross and 1080 feet from Point H.


From all of this I still believe that the real Money Pit is some 14 feet West and further North from what is traditionally depicted in satellite images. Maybe the current searchers are in the correct spot? Soon to find out.

Here is a blank image of the “Corrected” Stone Triangle for you to experiment with.

Leroy A Crooks Film 1939 – Jo Atherton – Youtube