Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[Tom_in_CA]

Sorry, but that is the lined tailings pond for the project.

You know what this means, don't you ? That simply means that the persons who buried the O.I. treasure (masons, pirates, templars, or whomever) put "lined tailings" on the Atlantic Ocean. To keep it from filling in their 200 ft. deep hole. Hey, if it works for the picture in #1403, to keep water from in-filling the hole, then so-too could it work 250 yrs. ago.

Thus: The treasure most certainly exists.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

You are confusing assumptions and popular opinion with facts or truth. "Facts" are information that is proven to be true. "Truth" is what exists in accordance with facts and reality. Both vastly different than opinions.

Correct. "True" and "false" are not subjective. They are objective. Whether or not someone believes them. If someone doesn't believe in gravity, that will not stop the person from falling off the empire state building to the sidewalk below.

 

[Philvis]

I watch the show weekly (or whenever I catch up) because as a kid it was probably the one treasure story I loved the most. As I've said before on here, I will never knock the Laginas, as they are doing something that 99% of us on here will never have an opportunity to try. The biggest issue they have going for them at this point in time is this island has been dug up to no end for 200 years. The last guy in the 1960s was just bulldozing huge expanses of the island. It's all been muddled up and the odds of them finding the remnants of the so-called original money pit is not very high. I don't think they would even know if they hit it if they did. I enjoy seeing the new technologies employed, but again, the island has been dug up so much, I don't think they stand a chance of imaging coming back with an anomaly that isn't disturbed soil from some other venture before them.

I fully understand that the fanciful theories are what help make it more interesting, but it also is a detriment to the show as well. For example, they are travelling all over Europe seeing Templar sites, but just now discovered an article from the 1860's in a Nova Scotia newspaper that spoke to a contemporary excavation that discovered potential finger drains? I was surprised such a prominent article had never been seen by any of the researchers on the team. The metal detecting is another thing. I know there is a contemptuous relationship between metal detectorists and archaeologists, but one of the biggest reasons archaeologists don't like or take too much stock in metal detecting finds is a lack of context. Finding that crucifix without context means nothing more than very old crucifix was dropped who knows when and that Bobby Dazzler was pulled up in 2018. It could have been dropped ANYTIME in the past 200 years.

The one thing they've done right, but unfortunately took VERY long to do, was building out the coffer dam. If it were my project, the first thing I would have done was try to find those finger drains (after having researched that article from the 1860s!). If they exist, that is what you follow to the Money Pit. Otherwise it's like a needle in a haystack drilling all those test holes. I think they are key to everything. If they exist, there is definitely something to it. If not, they should really start reconsidering things.

Again, I would LOVE for their to be some fantastic treasure. Based on what the show has presented and much more available research due to the internet making the information much more accessible, my personal theory is that something was found there initially. Maybe a pirates treasure of some sort. The original people involved then created the story and continued digging to keep it unknown to everyone else that they had found something already. Or that the Ball (I think that is his name) guy found something, thus his unexplained wealth. While I enjoy hearing the out there theories as entertainment, those theories are no more credible than that of Civil War treasure in Lake Michigan or PA.

What they need to do now is conduct dendrochronology on the timber structure found in Smith's Cove to get a date on that. The show entertains me and I wish the Laginas success, but I will not be surprised if they come up empty.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

View attachment 1675464

All the Nay Sayers who state that you cannot dig a hole near water without flooding...Look how close to water this hole has been dug...Any water in it?

Udachny Mine is 1,250 ft above sea level in the middle of Siberia - central Russia. It is (was) the hardened remains of an extinct volcano where diamonds were mined. And about 500 miles from the nearest ocean.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/U...94a23c0f95906d!8m2!3d66.4348473!4d112.3179784

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Don't forget: That finger points both ways.

Ie.: In the same way you would accuse the disbelievers of being "close-minded" , well, ....... so too, figure that: The disbelievers would be 'pointing that same finger' back at believers, for failing to take into consideration the counter-evidence.

I agree, IF you provided any factual(not circumstantial or supposed) counter arguments to the points raised.

This statement seems to promote the notions that "all interpretations are equal". And that "truth" is utterly "subjective" and "personal". Eh ? However: I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that some "interpretations" can be erroneous. There are people who come up with conclusions (aka "interpretations"). That hold utterly no water, and are totally full of holes. Right ?

Everything is subjective! I never said "all interpretations are equal". Yes people make mistakes ON BOTH SIDES. That doesn't change the physical evidence presented.

Hence why are you appealing to this ? To suggest that someone's interpretation here can't be true, simply because it's merely a "interpretation" ? If that were true, then the finger would point both ways: Your stance too, is *merely* an "interpretation". Right ?

"To suggest that someone's interpretation here can't be true," I never said that either. Wrong! There is presented evidence.

Great. Agreed. Ok, so why did you make your aforementioned claim then ?

To show that ANYONE can claim to find truth in any statement.

There's not a spot on earth where similar "strange things" can't be woven around innocuous mundane things. That .... if you get glossy-eyed enough, you couldn't likewise begin to weave fabulous "what if?" scenarios, around random "mysterious" things. I have no doubt, that if I went into my backyard (1 acre in Monterey, CA), that ... given enough time and speculations (add in some local legends and conjectures) that I couldn't weave a similar story. AND EVEN GET IT INTO THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER to further-substantiate it.



If you'd like a true local example of how such "newspaper worthy" stories, launched a local legend, I can let you know such-an-example. And even well-meaning intelligent people went "looking for it", despite the innocuous explanation that would/could have shown "no treasure".


Interesting that only counter explanations get labeled as "hypothetical". Yet notions of "treasure" can't be labeled as hypothetical or "opinion" . Convenient, eh ?

You haven't provided a single counter explanation. Not one. All you have done was speculate and suppose and mainly try to discredit the argument and not the presented evidence.

This is along the lines of "where there is smoke, there is fire" line-of-reasoning. Right ? Ie.: there HAS to be something there, otherwise .... all those people wouldn't be looking for it. Sinking $$ into it, risking their lives for it, etc.... Am I understanding you correctly ? If so, I would be more-than-happy to discuss whether-or-not that validates any given claim, as necessarily being a given "true".

No it doesn't validate if it is true. However, they believed in it enough to die for.

No. I doesn't depend on a "person's belief". That would make truth or error subjective. Instead of objective. "Truth" does not depend on whether or not persons "believe" in it, or not. Truth depends on whether it's true or not. Ie.: Objective, not subjective.

Faith and belief are never objective.

It suddenly occurs to me that, you would rather debate a person's beliefs/character/perceptions rather than the presented evidence of OI. That's a debate I am not interested in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It suddenly occurs to me that, you would rather debate a person's beliefs/character/perceptions rather than the presented evidence of OI. ....

That would be the logical fallacy of "ad hominem". And no, I do not think I called you "names" or attacked your character. If it came across that way, please forgive me.

I am trying to get the other side to think of how such things might (just might) have other explanations. And a part of that process is to examine how easy it is to overlook steps of critical thinking. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you personally (your character, your beliefs, etc...). On the contrary, we are looking at all sides of it. And sure, that might mean someone's feathers get ruffled when it doesn't conclude in the way they want it to conclude. But please don't interpret that as a character attack. I did not mean my points in that way, at all.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So to analyze your points, one by one . Academically, not "personally", here goes :

... I agree, IF you provided any factual(not circumstantial or supposed) counter arguments to the points raised.. ....

This seems to shift the burden of proof on a skeptic. To get him to try to prove it's NOT there. Seems to me that the burden of proof would be on the claimant's side. To show it IS there. Right ?

... Everything is subjective! I never said "all interpretations are equal". Yes people make mistakes ON BOTH SIDES. That doesn't change the physical evidence presented.....

Ok, yes, I got you now: "Interpretations" are (yes) "subjective". But we both agree that truth (ie.: the *correct* interpretation) is NOT subjective. I think we both agree on that. I thought you were trying to say that because a skeptic had an opinion or interpretation, that it was, of necessity, not necessarily "valid". Since it was only an "interpretation". But it sounds like we both agree now.

... You haven't provided a single counter explanation. Not one. All you have done was speculate and suppose and mainly try to discredit the argument and not the presented evidence......

The trouble with the "presented evidence" (that claimant's/believers point to) is that it's basically "pointing back to the legend itself". As being "proof of the legend itself". Eg.: fibers, drains, gold links, etc... Are all just "pointing to the legend" as "proof of the legend". See the circularity of that ?

And when any skeptic who tries to explain away any of these salacious details (believe me, many have tried), is that it immediately descends into a game of wack-a-mole Example pages and pages of debates on coconut fiber buoyancy, whether or not that part of the story "evolved" into the legend at later stages, whether or not there could be other reasons it's there. How many slaves can dig how fast in xx period of time, etc... etc...

And let's just cut-to-the-chase and assume all the salacious details WERE true (gold links, strange lights, eerie out of place triangles, fibers, the fabled stories of the boys, etc...). Don't forget : All treasure legends are 99% true. None of them ever started with "Once upon a time". Instead, they are all based around real names, dates, and events. So a researcher can prove 99% of them to be utterly true (names, dates, etc...). Leaving the skeptic to look mighty silly, right ? But this fails to take into account that : If there's no treasure (ie.: the last 1% of the story), then what does it matter about the 99% that's true ? And/or can't be dis-proven by the skeptic ?

... No it doesn't validate if it is true. However, they believed in it enough to die for.......

Well, if you acknowledge that it "doesn't validate it's true", then the second sentence become inconsequential to the discussion. People have died looking for lost dutchman, yamashita, etc.... People have died at Jonestown for something they sincerely believed in, etc... We can both agree that "effort" and "sincerity" (to the point of death) does not validate the truth of a notion.

... Faith and belief are never objective........

But if they are "faith and belief" in factual matters, then those factual matters, themselves, are objective. As in : Objectively true. To "believe" in something, is not to be construed that the thing you believe in, can't also be objectively true, if the faith and belief is in a true and factual thing.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

That would be the logical fallacy of "ad hominem". And no, I do not think I called you "names" or attacked your character. If it came across that way, please forgive me.

I am trying to get the other side to think of how such things might (just might) have other explanations. And a part of that process is to examine how easy it is to overlook steps of critical thinking. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you personally (your character, your beliefs, etc...). On the contrary, we are looking at all sides of it. And sure, that might mean someone's feathers get ruffled when it doesn't conclude in the way they want it to conclude. But please don't interpret that as a character attack. I did not mean my points in that way, at all.

FOR the record, I am neither offended or have my feathers ruffled. We are 5x5. I am just saying I'm not interested in discussing why people do what they do. I understand to a lot of debunkers, that this is their core evidence. That everyone is wrong involving their concepts of the events of OI.

However, a proper debate is one where one side presents a case with evidence, the other side rebutts with their evidence. This baloney that one side doesn't have to utilize evidence to make their argument is just that, baloney. To say the evidence is wrong because of someone's character is an ineffective argument.

I also understand that anything up to this point is not considered evidence by some debunkers. That's their choice. But if you ignore one piece of evidence, then whomever has every right to ignore your evidence(but in all honesty, all I have seen was supposition, conjecture, and in depth analysis of human behavior).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

FOR the record, I am neither offended or have my feathers ruffled. ...

Ok, good. Pphheeww.

.... This baloney that one side doesn't have to utilize evidence to make their argument is just that, baloney. ....

Ok, to apply that to a real-world scenario then: If I were to claim to you, that there is 100 pounds of gold buried by pirates in my backyard. You would probably doubt this claim, right ? And I would wager to say that you probably could not raise a bit of evidence "against" that claim. So on your view (given your quote here), would I be justified in saying that you are not "utilizing evidence", when you doubted my backyard treasure story ?

.... all I have seen ... in depth analysis of human behavior....

Yes. And I consider that to be a very valid part of the pro/con discussion. To show how such things can be launched, evolve, etc....

And yes, I can see how that can be chalked up to "genetic fallacy". Ie.: To show HOW something evolved, or WHY a person believes in something, does not make the thing itself true or untrue. Thus I will be the first to admit that my stance could be seen as "genetic fallacy".

 

[will7782]

Philvis, thank you. I am also interested in the mystery. First read of OI when I was young. tired of reading people squabble. It'd be cool if they would exchange phone numbers and argue in private.

Agree that the coffer dam will provide a trove of info. I just cant stop thinking that the swamp factors in.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

The area behind the coffer dam has been dug up several times before and also to much deeper depths. Nothing was ever found other than common items including the wharf structures they re-uncovered on the show. It also proved that the make believe flood tunnels never existed.

As soon as the advertiser’s dollars begin to dwindle, the show will end and the hoax go quiet again. Then in 20 or more years when a new generation of naive tv watchers become adults, the hoax will again present itself to a new generation. It’s an action plan that has been repeated over and over throughout the years.

We watch the show over beers to watch the look on the actor’s faces when someone makes a “profound” statement and them doing all they can to not burst into laughter. Sooner or later the cameraman will slip up and we’ll see it happen in the background.....

 

[Robot]

What do Rivers not contain Water?

Sorry, but that is the lined tailings pond for the project.

Udachny diamond mine located in the Eastern-Siberian Region of Russia is currently the fourth deepest open pit mine in the world. The Udachny pit is currently 630m deep. Located next to the Irelyakh River.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

It suddenly occurs to me that, you would rather debate a person's beliefs/character/perceptions rather than the presented evidence of OI. That's a debate I am not interested in.

OK. What kind of treasure does the evidence as found to date on Oak Island indicate?

I maintain that in 180 years of searching there is no evidence that would indicate any treasure at all.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that people have been LOOKING for a treasure, and likely a lot of debris from non-treasure related work on the island.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Udachny diamond mine located in the Eastern-Siberian Region of Russia is currently the fourth deepest open pit mine in the world. The Udachny pit is currently 630m deep. Located next to the Irelyakh River.
View attachment 1675547

I love it . I absolutely love it. And this is an example of the reason why it is SO HARD for skeptical persons to offer up evidence of their skepticism. Because, like this, if a supposed impossibility is suggested, then ... sure enough ... someone could come up with an example, somewhere in the world, where a giant feat against nature was performed.

Thus .... therefore .... it's possible that pirates dug down that deep and overcame the water intrusion problem. After all: They did it at the Udachny pit. Therefore, ..... why not just as easily at Oak Island ? This is an example of the game of wack-a-mole I was referring to . The legend is still alive. It's not disproven. As long as ANY "remote contingency method" can be shown, to make various tenets of the legend *possible*.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

According to Google Maps it is about 30 miles away from a river called the Reka Makhra (?). Don't see an Irelyakh River anywhere close. It's way down by Mirny, Siberia. 250 miles south of the Udachny mine. Maybe in Siberia that is considered "close"?

And the soil of central Siberia is NOTHING like the soil of Nova Scotia. Lots of volcanism in the past it that part of Russia. None at all in Nova Scotia.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

According to Google Maps it is about 30 miles away from a river called the Reka Makhra (?)....

An example of how the wack-a-mole game begins. Eg.: Something like this can descend into 20 pages of: 30, vs 29, vs 31 miles from the river. And proximity to springs or lakes or ponds. Type of soil (volcanic vs granular). Color of soil. Depth till hard-pan is reached. Chemical make-up of soil. Chemical makeup of water. Blah blah blah.

Then on the 21st page, a person will dare ask "What does this have to do with whether or not there's a treasure there or not ?".

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

For sure.

Another example - has coconut fiber EVER been found above, near or with a treasure so that it should be considered a "clue" on Oak Island?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

For sure.

Another example - has coconut fiber EVER been found above, near or with a treasure so that it should be considered a "clue" on Oak Island?

Well.... OF COURSE. And the moment 2 persons spend 20 pages debating the proximity of those fibers to water, their depth, their buoyancy rate, their color and chemical makeup, etc... has EVERYTHING TO DO with whether a treasure exists. Right ? And unless you can prove OTHERWISE, then ... presto: The treasure is most certainly there. Right ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Well . . . I can't prove that is not. ;-) But then I can't prove a Boeing 747 isn't buried under Oak Island.

And if Captain Kidd had an English teacher like mine that made us memorize Shakespeare soliloquies and recite them I can see why he might bury the lost texts 200 feet deep with traps over them.

But speculation doesn't feed the kitty.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well . . . I can't prove that is not..... .

Therefore .... IT IS. Repent.